Re: [Icar] Reviewers: One single group or per-area groups?

Michael,

	I agree with your observation. My no-difference comment was
referring specifically to Margaret's analysis.

	The per-area boards are better if we want to focus on internal
per-area review. A global pool is better if we want to emphasize
cross-area and support no-specific-area review. We will indeed attract
"different classes of people", especially if we also consider open
versus closed pool or AD-ruled versus self-managed board approaches.

Alex.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michael A. Patton wrote:

>    From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
>
>    I see no essential difference between a single board with members that
>    specialize in certain areas and multiple boards with members
>    specializing in board-specific area.
>
> I think one of the most important goals of this group is generalized
> cross-fertilization, and it's just the sort of generalists who
> wouldn't be part of an area-specific group, but might be part of a
> single group, who can, possibly, offer the most in such an effort.
> So, in that regard, there's probably a fair amount of difference
> between those two organizational structures.  They will encourage
> different classes of people to participate.

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar