Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,
At 12:26 19-03-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>Before there was computer communications, the word protocol referred 
>to rules of conduct among people.  It is still used that way in some 
>circles.  I used the term in an attempt to invoke a well understood 
>design concept among independent participants -- human as well as 
>computer:  Failing to obtain explicit confirmation does not work, 
>for critical functions.

I tried to get the message through without any undue risk to my 
personal safety. :-)

>If there really is a time-critical aspect to the review, then it is 
>better to err on the side of sending a new query to a new reviewer 
>than to wait longer for the original reviewer to confirm. The 
>downside of contacting a new reviewer unnecessarily is two 
>reviews.  The downside of waiting too long to contact the new 
>reviewer could well be no reivews.

The explicit ACK would then mean five days for me to find a 
reviewer.  If a review has a two week deadline, it turns into one 
week to get the review out so that the Apps Area ADs can read it 
before an IESG evaluation.

The real issue here is that the review is being assigned too late in 
the process.  The time-critical aspect can be avoided by identifying 
the document to be reviewed earlier, i.e. when it is in Last Call.

>However that's different from setting expectations among all 
>participants -- that's us, in this case -- to know we have an 
>obligation to respond quickly.

I did not intend it to be viewed as an obligation.  It was meant as a 
target that I could tweak.

>If there are deeper problems with this group -- and I wasn't aware 
>there was -- then they need to be addressed directly and not through 
>bits of indirect cleverness in specified conventions.  We ain't very 
>good at subtlety around here...

There are problems in getting reviews done.  When I first took over, 
it looked like an impossible task.  Some people left the team and 
there was a shortage of XML reviewers.  Reviews requested by WG 
Chairs took months to be delivered due to reassignments.

>certainly agree it is excellent for you to do that.  (By the same 
>token, it is an extra burden for you and while it's great that you 
>are willing to carry that burden, I would not want to write it into 
>the formal job description, since the next person doing this job 
>might not be willing or able to incur that extra effort.)

I would not describe it as a burden as I signed up for it.  I would 
like to hand over a group that works to the next person doing the job.

BTW, you message to apps-review was automatically discarded.  I don't know why.

Best regards,
-sm