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

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 23 September 2011 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C01921F8C79 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.004
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ik6itvofgM8 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA38A21F8BFE for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so3670471gxk.31 for <>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vi1WKwl5D8TSh7Mgr1ZcsPuSJX1nregJNdz+lue/6A4=; b=MclrqennvwQIAh6ktBqIFDOmlBDX+4c1Kyz17w9xJNhRtDqJJ25sR7+3mOnQpvs6Wj r46t1dCqTxt6XmazvpiHKP/2AyTi3bIlT7wAh50kIZw71NvWyITvTzK6TB881JUBrIw9 1j8eNqaD4WUAnECBkwD2mwdlNzwN48V9oJvXs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id d43mr25008226yhe.22.1316812300764; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:11:40 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2FOHMDowJXTcz8DSD0PZwqrsJCE
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: SM <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 21:09:06 -0000

>> Seeing how many reviewers post their reviews to apps-review prompts me
>> to suggest a change to the up-front paragraph of your review request
>> template.  I suggest this (example taken from a recent review
>> request):
> As a general comment, we send the review to apps-discuss as it has a wider
> readership.

Yes, I know.  And when people post their reviews to apps-review
instead, you wind up having to forward them to apps-discuss.  Better
if we can fend that off.

> General comment, some of the reviews are early reviews, i.e. they are
> performed before a Last Call has been initiated.  It is easier to ask for a
> change and less work for the author/working group.  I don't ask for a Cc to
> the IESG in such cases.  If the Apps ADs or anyone thinks that it is
> appropriate to also copy the IESG in such cases, please let me know.

No, I think it's fine as it is.  Obviously, you'd adjust your text
accordingly, recommending a cc to the IESG or not, as appropriate.

> I would like to ask you whether it is worth picking editorial nits in an
> early review.

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.

>> I would also update the wiki, but I can't see how to (can you tell
>> me?).  If you want to, here's my suggestion for
> Please ask Ned for a login for  If anyone
> needs a login, feel free to email me.

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?