RE: [Icar] ICAR draft charter

Alex,

I like this approach.  

I think you might be able to clarify the first paragraph a little
bit.  As I understand it, you are actually focusing on two
separate (and probably separable) issues with separate drafts.
I had a bit of a problem understanding what kinds of things might
be included in each of the drafts.  I believe it would help
if you were a bit more explicit about the expected scope of
each.  As an example, I could make up several different
scopes for a document considering "community review".
I would suggest you make the scope of the WG more explicit
by modifying the first paragraph to read something like the
following:  (note that I am only guessing about your intent
with the words "community review" and "structured review" and I
may be completely wrong, so your wording for each might be
completely different).

  WG Description:

	Develop mechanisms for improved cross-functional review within
	the IETF.  It is an explicit goal of the WG to come up with
	mechanisms encouraging earlier and better review of documents.
	[Should this apply to all drafts, or just standards track
technical
	drafts?]
	An early review is best for catching architectural problems
while
	they are relatively easy to solve.  It is an explicit goal
	of the WG to assure that the review process brings in 
	cross-area expertise to spot possible unforeseen interactions
and
	improve overall document quality.  Two documents are expected
	to be created:

	1)  Community Review Guidelines:
		Mechanisms and techniques to solicit early 
		cross-functional review, which may include:
		a)  Guidelines for selecting time of reviews.
		b)  Guidelines for selecting and soliciting
			review from cross-functional experts.
		c)  Other material relevant to this scope.

	2)  Structured Review Guidelines:
		Mechanisms and techniques to solicit and record
		meaningful review of documents, which may include:
		a)  Guidelines for notifying potential reviewers
			of review requirement
		b)  Guidelines for assuring reviewer participation
		c)  Guidelines for accumulating review issues
		d)  Guidelines for responding to review issues
		e)  Guidelines for measuring and achieving consensus
		f)  Other material relevant to this scope.

>    WG Description:
> 
>      Work out mechanisms for improved cross-functional review within
>      the IETF. This includes a better community review, as well as
>      more structured (formal and role-based) pre-IESG review that may
>      be used to improve scalability of the IESG review function. It is
>      an explicit goal of the WG to come up with mechanisms encouraging
>      earlier review of the documents. An early review is best for
>      catching architectural problems while they're still relatively
>      easy to solve. In particular, many cross-area interactions can be
>      spotted and dealt with, thus avoiding many "late surprises". A
>      final review can catch remaining cross-area interactions, as well
>      as deal with overall quality issues.

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