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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Just for the record - As one of the recent offenders, and probably the 
one who triggered this proposal, I agree with these changes.

What I did when I wrote up the review was to look at an older example 
and follow that. Apparently, that was also mistaken, or was too old.

One thing I did which we currently don't say anything about is that I 
cc'ed the WG in charge of the document. This is mostly because if I'm in 
a WG that gets a review (e.g. security, gen-art), I'd also like to see 
these.

What do others think?

Regards,   Martin.

On 2011/09/24 0:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, SM.
> 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):
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> OLD
> Pete requested a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18.  The review has
> been assigned to you and is due before September 4.
>
> NEW
> Pete requested a review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-18.  The review has
> been assigned to you and is due before September 4.  Please post your
> review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to apps-review.
> --------------------------------------------------
> OLD
> The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the IESG, the
> WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable.
>
> NEW
> The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the IESG, the authors, the
> WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable.  You can use the tools
> alias [e-mail] to cover the authors,
> chairs, and shepherd.  If your review recommends significant changes
> to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the
> working group's mailing list.
>
> Suggested distribution:
>     To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>     cc: [e-mail]
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think that makes it easier for the reviewers to get it right, and
> not all the reviewers know how to use the tools aliases, so I think
> this will help.  Want to try it?
>
> 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
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> OLD
> This page provides a template for reviews provided by members of the
> Apps-Review Team.
> Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list and make
> sure to cc the author(s) of the specification you are reviewing! You
> might also want to check out some samples, such as the reviews of
> draft-wahl-ldap-p3p, draft-ietf-btns-c-api,
> draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis, draft-merrick-jms-uri, and
> draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.
>
> NEW
> This page provides a template for reviews provided by members of the
> Apps-Review Team.
>
> Reviewers: Please send all reviews to the apps-discuss list
> ([bold]not[/bold] to the apps-review list), and to the ".all" tools
> alias for the specification you are reviewing (see below)!  In cases
> where your review recommends significant changes to a working-group
> document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing
> list.
>
> You might also want to check out some samples, such as the reviews of
> draft-wahl-ldap-p3p, draft-ietf-btns-c-api,
> draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis, draft-merrick-jms-uri, and
> draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.
>
> Suggested distribution list for reviews:
>     To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>     cc: [e-mail]
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> apps-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>