Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Sun, 20 March 2011 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 EB71328C0CF for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 3w-Lu+xyLezH for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253D33A6AAB for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.20.2] ((unknown) [212.183.140.35]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <TYYbDwADLy=V@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:19:44 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <4D861AE1.1000402@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:18:57 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D850453.1090509@qualcomm.com> <4D853F38.4080203@dcrocker.net> <f5b8vwanlrr.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk> <4D861916.30504@qualcomm.com> <4D861A89.8070404@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D861A89.8070404@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Early Cursory Reviews
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: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:18:15 -0000

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Pete Resnick wrote: 

 [...]

>> said exactly the same thing. Followup question:
>
>> Even if you were assigned one per month, what would be the amount of 
>> time you would want from "pickup out of the queue" until "completion 
>> of review"? What I worry about is the same thing SM is trying to 
>> address with the initial proposed changes: I don't want to wait for a 
>> month to find out that someone is *not* going to be able to complete 
>> a review
>
I think the same 1-2-3 days ACK period should apply to these (as 
discussed in another thread).

>> and then we have to restart the month timer in the queue, especially 
>> for what I'm hoping is an early cursory review. Is one week enough 
>> time to complete a review of this sort, even if you are only asked to 
>> do one per month?
>
> 2 weeks should be enough. Most of IESG doing similar reviews within 1 
> week, but I appreciate that people without proper "IESG training" 
> might need more time.