IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 21 March 2011 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 5430C3A68C6 for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.624
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.025, 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 kU7OYA5Wg+4b for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DB43A68C2 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:57:04 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-review@ietf.org" <apps-review@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:57:03 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
Thread-Index: Acvn8kZDHm+/1zT/SFm4VE8i5KuyRAAFzCjQ
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F134331999A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com> <4D861898.2040101@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110320113434.0c1626b8@elandnews.com> <7AE95D9A5FCB3646106E712E@[192.168.1.128]> <4D8792AE.9070208@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D8792AE.9070208@isode.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:55:32 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-review-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: John C Klensin; SM
> Cc: Pete Resnick; apps-review@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team
> 
> >>One suggested change that has not be discussed is the Team
> >>Lead.  The Team Lead should have a good relationship with the
> >>Apps Area ADs as he or she works under their direction.
> >>Keeping a Team Lead for too long does not ensure continuity.
> 
> SM, I would like to know why you think that.
> I don't think there is a need for changing the Team Lead every year.

I concur.  Continuity across AD terms is a good thing.

And one other point to mention: Although we say explicitly that any of the SecDir, DNSDIR, GenArt, etc. reviews have no more weight than any other LC comments, I think it's also fair to say that this may not be the case in practice.  Most or all of the DISCUSSes I have had to handle in the past that didn't originate with the ADs themselves came from these reviews.  We may say they carry equal weight, but I for one don't buy it.  But I also don't have a problem with that; the people on these lists are experts in their fields and experienced IETF people, and their reviews are essentially solicited (indirectly) by ADs.  I think it's quite reasonable for reviewer comments to bend an AD's ear a little more than usual.

I don't know if we can/should say so in the review templates, but it does seem odd to me every time I read it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email