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

SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 19 March 2011 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 7FD0D3A69B8 for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.212, 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 p6XxtSKwil3X for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726393A698C for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2JJA7vS028850; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:10:13 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1300561815; bh=X5HxDMlN+nVeq2ZL1ZXvGJxgok4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Q3YteQgqJX3i2x9WhhXJgiminDJEQAkO6n/4UKxG4+GeVN6zD8CYmOmXXaBwvSV/u WtVb7+LrdxUZkUpUbqXJZg8jEFDvBt9CmUGtt5pLrBovusu+hWNxB9HkOrhDTYGu5w Jc4uXZ2GPHvY11uy2B5LGJmSKjW9fpaxMMpDXtk4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110319090020.0882cb68@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:55:47 -0700
To: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, 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: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:08:45 -0000

Hi Kurt,
At 06:34 19-03-2011, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>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 agree that it is a poor assumption to make.

It may happen that the reviewer is travelling for over a day or that 
he or she is without Internet connectivity for several days.  I have 
experienced both cases.

>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.

I'll try to explain the problem from my perspective.  Some team 
members do not respond to a request for review even after 48 hours 
(excluding weekends and holidays).  I reassigned the review in such 
cases.  After a while, it turned into reviews being assigned to a 
small subset of the team.

If I have to reassign three out of five assignments, it leaves me 
with very little choice especially when a specific expertise is 
required.  And that is what happened last year.  This team does not 
operate like other review teams; the next team member in line for an 
assignment may have to be skipped when, for example, XML expertise is desired.

You performed all the assignments that you got.  The same cannot be 
said about every team member.  I can go to Alexey and Peter and say 
that I am using the well-established "procedures".  In practice, we 
know that the "process" don't work.  Or I can make assumptions that 
do not look good on paper.  In practice, some teams members may end 
up on the pending reviews list and I can walk to the Alexey and Peter 
and say that I found a good excuse to drop them from the team.  I 
know that some people listed on the pending reviews list are very 
busy.  As I have met some of them, I gather that they can tell 
whether I would drop them due to personal disagreements.

Best regards,
-sm