Re: [Icar] Progress?

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

> We already have some working groups doing it. How do we get more? I
> think that this is a matter of culture and educating folks about
> benefits and, to some extent, expectations.

I'll buy this.  But, there is a fine line between developing culture and
developing rules, I think.  I.e., if we're relying on folk (especially
ADs) to cajole WGs into invoking the review function then we may be
basically creating de-facto rules.

> If reviewing proposals were an odd or new idea then we might have to
> worry about selling the basic concept.  But this is all pretty
> standard stuff in the academic and engineering community.  Getting
> fresh sets of expert eyes to look things over is not a controversial
> concept and the benefits are well-established.

I agree.

The downside is time.  People already think the IETF process is too
slow.  Adding another step may simply look like lengthening the
process.  Of course, the hope is that we're also lopping off a
significant chunk at the end.  But, that is the part that we do not yet
have concrete examples of.  If you could show data that said "early
reviewed docs took X months from -00 to RFC and non-early review docs
took Y months from -00 to RFC, where X << Y" then the case would be
clear and compelling.

> MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS experience before.

I was not insinuating that it was a failure.  We'd do things differently
if we had it to do over.  My point was that its existence did not
immediately yield people clamoring for reviews.  If getting a breadth of
early reviews was self-evidently good then I'd have expected more.

I do think I understand your answer to my original question, though.  I
think it boils down to having a big organizational push to try some
things (one thing, two things, whatever).

allman


--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/