Re: [Icar] an early review experiment

On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 09:07 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
> No.  I was asking where reviews go, how the information generated by 
> the
> reviewer is fed back to the WG / authors.

I prefer that it go to the wg mailing list - the wg needs to know
what's going on, and the process needs to remain as transparent
as possible.  I think a bigger question is how the completed reviews
are managed - whether they're maintained in a database (the draft
tracker?), whether or not they should be bundled with the draft
when its submitted to the IESG, etc.

>   + How binding are early, cross area review comments on authors /
>     editors / WGs?

I'm not sure they're *binding*, although they're surely more weighty.
Worst case scenario:  wg wants to do something inane, early review
catches it, wg says "nope, we really intend to do this," inanity gets
through wg last call and is submitted to the IESG, the IESG says "this
is inane, we're not going to publish it."  The wg has had plenty of
warning that they're off track, presumably the responsible AD has had
the same notice, and it's completely on the shoulders of the wg and the
wg chair for having produced inane work.  That strikes me as a healthy
process.  Having reviewers tell the working group what they can and
cannot do seems potentially stifling to me.

Melinda

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