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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

I think this looks good, except that I would add that (as usual in the 
IETF) these rules should be applied according to circumstances, not 
strictly according to the letter.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2011/03/19 16:50, SM wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been acting as Applications Area Review Team Lead for nearly a
> year. My assessment is that the team is still not fully functional.
> Alexey made some suggestions. Please comment on the following suggested
> changes:
>
> There are three kinds of requests:
>
> (a) Early reviews requested by the Apps Area ADs
>
> (b) Review of a document in Last Call
>
> (c) Document on the IESG Agenda
>
> I would like to minimize requests for (c) as it would mean a short
> deadline for assignments.
>
> Reviews requested by Apps Area ADs could include a list of issues to
> look for when specific reviewer expertize is required.
>
> When an assignment is made, the review can:
>
> (i) acknowledge that he or she can perform the review before the deadline
>
> (ii) acknowledge that he or she can perform the review but he or she
> requires more time
>
> (iii) decline the assignment
>
> 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.
>
> Team members that have been unable to perform three assignments over a
> six month period can be dropped from the team.
>
> The review template at
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template suggests that the
> review should provide a one-sentence summary, e.g.:
>
> (i) This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC
>
> (ii) This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC but
> has a few issues that should be fixed before publication
>
> (iii) This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and
> should be revised before publication
>
> followed by major issues, minor issues and nits.
>
> Major issues are the type of concerns that will result in the document
> being blocked until they are resolved.
>
> Minor issues are concerns about clarity or technical accuracy that
> should be discussed and resolved before publication, but which would
> normally be resolved between the authors and the reviewers.
>
> Nits are editorial or layout items. They would ideally be resolved
> before publication to make the document more readable. Usually a
> reviewer will not be looking for this type of issue, but may find some
> in the course of the review.
>
> If you have any other suggestions, please send them to the list.
>
> Best regards,
> -sm
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[e-mail]