Re: [Icar] Progress?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

To a large extent I agree with Dave, but not everywhere...

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Joel,
> 
> Thanks for pursuing this.  By way of trying to help prime the pump:
> 
> JMH> Should the proposal explicitly address cross-area, or just outside the WG, or ?
> 
> Cross-area, versus outside the wg, can be viewed as two different
> concerns, both very important.  Hence, I think the proposal should
> deal explicitly with both, but leave the actual choices to the working
> group.
> 
> This deferral to the wg is based on the view that the proposal should
> provide a mechanism that is available to the working group, but that
> the wg chooses whether to use it, rather than having the proposal
> impose anything on the wg.

But at the end of the process, the IESG will impose cross-area review
on the WG; that's what the IESG does. So if we want to ease the perception
that the IESG is a bottleneck, we need to *encourage* WGs to solicit (and
react to) cross-area review. 

> 
> JMH> Should the proposal address the reported problems from other review panels
> JMH> with calling for volunteers to review specific documents?
> 
> That would be nice, but not essential.  All feedback is relevant.
> Requiring that a particular proposal deal with the entire range of
> possible feedback could be more distracting than beneficial.
> 
> JMH> Should the proposal have detailed requirements for the review, or just
> JMH> guidelines as to what an initial summary needs to say?
> 
> If we view proposals as offering services to working groups, rather
> than imposing requirements to them, then the the question of review
> process and content detail become a matter of quality and style,
> rather than formal requirement. More detail is usually better, but not
> always.

For some strange reason I think the level of guidelines for the content
of a review in the SIRs draft is about right. Note, they are guidelines,
not requirements.

In some of the reviews I've done recently for Harald, I've been amazed -
I've seen both void Security sections and missing tables of contents
in documents already on the IESG's table. So it seems we do need to
apply elementary guidelines, even before getting to review the meat of
a document.
> 
> JMH> Should the proposal include requirements / restrictions on qualifications
> JMH> of reviewers?
> 
> Again, this is a matter of addressing quality control of the review
> process.  The more random and unpredictable the backgrounds and skills
> of the reviewers, the more random and unpredictable will be their
> reviews.

We need to make the system self-correcting (i.e. people who turn out
to be weak reviewers simply don't get asked back.) 

> 
> JMH> Should a proposal provide for formal inclusion of early review in the
> JMH> standards process, or should it just be a mechanism for a WG getting early
> JMH> feedback?
> 
> I think the formal view should be the latter, and that the former will
> evolve naturally from that, as the reviewing is shown to improve
> quality and timeliness.
> 
> JMH> Should the proposal provide incentives for WGs to make use of early
> JMH> reviews, or "rewards" for doing so?
> 
> BY implication, yes, but not by formal rule.
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icar mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM



_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar