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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

Overall, the plan looks fine to me.

Two points:


On 3/19/2011 12:50 AM, SM wrote:
> If a reply is not provided within 24 hours of the request for review, it is
> assumed that the reviewer will be able to perform the review before the deadline.

I suggest that all assignments MUST receive an explicit acknowledgment.  I'm not 
sure what the timeout should be for the less urgent ones, but 24 hours seems 
fine for the IESG (relatively urgent) one.

But a default ack is not a good protocol construct for critical functions...


> followed by major issues, minor issues and nits.

I usually follow a review format that has:

    1. Summary of my understanding of the purpose and content of the document. 
This is a common reviewing technique and it establishes a base of factual 
understanding, before launching into the my opinions about the quality of the 
content. If I have any misunderstanding of the basics, it's better to surface 
that at the outset.  I also find that the discipline of formulating the factual 
summary helps to organize my thoughts about the draft.

    2. Summary of major issues

    3. Inline detailed comments.  For extended documents, the detailed feedback 
is typically extensive and not subject to summarization.  I frankly do not know 
how to break it out into clean distinctions of major/minor/nits without 
dramatically more work.  In addition, my view of major vs. minor vs. nit is 
likely not to match the authors'...

Adding an explicit "rating" at the beginning seems like an excellent idea; I'll 
try to remember to add one.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net