IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 21 March 2011 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756213A688F for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.155
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8UOL7xAYFFi for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46093A6889 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:46:33 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>, SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:46:31 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
Thread-Index: AcvmOm1XG/CUl8BSTreDH13wbV8WgwBzpOAg
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319998@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM>
In-Reply-To: <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "apps-review@ietf.org" <apps-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:45:01 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Zeilenga
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 6:35 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: Pete Resnick; apps-review@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
> 
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 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 think this is a poor assumption to make.   The reviewer might have
> dropped off the face of the Internet for a few days, or might even be
> dead.
> 
> I suggest instead that after 24 hours without a response, the team lead
> either reassign (such as when time for the review is short) or give the
> assigned reviewer another 24 hours to respond.  After 48 hours of now
> response, always reassign.
> 
> I also would not count hours of weekend and days of the reviewer's
> national holidays against those hours.

+1 to all points.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email