IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM> Sat, 19 March 2011 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.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 9A3533A6A09 for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 pZxy3bs-lvgy for <apps-review@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F61C3A690C for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.42.5] (75-141-240-242.dhcp.reno.nv.charter.com [75.141.240.242]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <TYSw7wADLwQt@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:34:40 +0000
From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.COM>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:34:37 -0700
Message-Id: <656CA927-DAEA-4FD7-B892-3FBF84DB1E6D@Isode.COM>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110318165117.0d43e6e0@elandnews.com>
To: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 13:33:14 -0000

On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:50 AM, SM wrote:

> 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.

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 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. 

-- Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email