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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Dave CROCKER wrote:
 [...]

>> 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.

I think this is a good format and it is quite similar to what GenArt and 
SecDir teams are using.