Re: [apps-review] Apps review team review request template

SM <> Fri, 23 September 2011 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659FD21F8CE8 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40PboPipSRgJ for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9054021F8CE6 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8NLpk7T002335; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:51:52 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1316814714; bh=ckIJ8vit68avCeC12vYNs74jNsY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=R+xQwZqIh2o1EiVnDphC5TKkOUJew9Wm6wKfypOFeoKHKvkbFXgxUqODsXYS2uolF wLdaHw1MxuuLR8+2DpLFSIlpxR6V5qgG119C7t8opGuZm6pJD2FdgsGDBIrHHJBjeM 3EcXgwP/ZAwFyyotjXrx1Cuk4h1hbXtjBG73Ym0U=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:51:31 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+RiDtY-6XmaacWQmgtsLLxyDAouehphdEwh2DCS+1_Rg@mail.g>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Apps review team review request template
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:49:27 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 14:11 23-09-2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
>I think it's not.  I would mention pervasive or significant editorial
>points (for example, if something is consistently wrong through the
>document, or if the grammar is particularly bad, such that another
>editor with better English skills should be added), but I wouldn't
>bother picking small points in an early review.

Thanks for the advice.  I am going to follow it.

>Ah.  So this isn't plugged into the regular tools wiki, then?  Can
>that be changed?  Or should we leave it?  What do the ADs think?

No, is not part of IETF infrastructure or run by 
the Tools teams.  I had a short discussion about that with the Apps 
ADs last year.  I preferred to leave it.

Best regards,