Re: [dir-coord] Review tracking requirements draft

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 21 April 2015 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C3E1B2A0B for <dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gm8GkRB7sHyo for <dir-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC5E21B2A07 for <dir-coord@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3LHkbGt064872 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <55368CF8.50603@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:32 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, dir-coord@ietf.org
References: <54DA39DD.8010702@nostrum.com> <54DAA4CE.3020306@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <54DAA4CE.3020306@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dir-coord/6oT0hcq7H31mMdHlcjAS5rOl3S4>
Subject: Re: [dir-coord] Review tracking requirements draft
X-BeenThere: dir-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is an e-mail alias for the organisers of IETF directorates." <dir-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dir-coord>, <mailto:dir-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dir-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:dir-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dir-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dir-coord>, <mailto:dir-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:46:46 -0000


On 2/10/15 6:39 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Looks good, some minor comments:
>
> #1 I'm not sure about this bit...
>
> "
>        -  The tool should allow the reviewer to enter the review into the
>           tool via a web form.  The tool will ensure the review is posted
>           to the appropriate lists, and will construct the links to those
>           posts in the archives.
> "
>
> The IESG debate where to send things now and then as do secdir and
> different folks have different reasonable opinions so automating
> the To/Cc lists for reviews may not be the best plan for now.
Understood, but I do think we want (typically) the team's email list 
informed at least.
There's no reason that the configuration for all teams needs to be the 
same, and we should make it so that the configuration is easy to change.
>
> #2 Some documents should not be reviewed. For example we used see
> secdir review assignments for IRTF documents. The set of things that
> are/are-not reviewed might change over time. Could be worth noting
> that.
I've captured a similar comment from David Black
>
> #3 Maybe there should be an "Other" ReviewResultName - people don't
> always find choosing from the set you list that easy I think.
The nice thing about this is that it's not something we have to specify 
as part of the code.
If a team needs an "Other" its something we can add as data at any time.
>
> #4 Many academic conference review tools allow a reviewer to pass
> on the review (usually to a poor student:-) and to ack that person
> in the review text, even if that's posted by the assigned reviewer.
> Not sure if we'd like that.
I don't think we need it given our current notion of a review team.
We'd just put the poor student on the team, no?
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
> On 10/02/15 17:03, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> All -
>>
>> Tero and I have a start on a draft of requirements for the evolution of
>> the review tracking tool.
>> Please see
>> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-review-tracker/>
>>
>> If you have a team that should be added to the block in the
>> introduction, please let us know (and if you have them, send us links
>> similar what the draft currently reference for gen-art and secdir).
>>
>> Please let us know if we've missed something that's important to you.
>> If it's appropriate for your review teams, ask them to comment as well.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any time you can spend helping identify how we can
>> make things better.
>>
>> RjS
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dir-coord mailing list
>> dir-coord@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dir-coord