Re: [Icar] Thoughts on ICAR direction

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> (Writing just as an interested participant...)
> 
> I've been watching the evolution of ICAR, and it seems like we aren't 
> succeeding in building a centralized structure for early review.  I 
> think that there are a number of reasons for this, the most pertinent of 
> which (IMO) is that a WG is not the right vehicle to develop and manage 
> a program.
> 
> So, I have some ideas for directions that ICAR could take that don't 
> involve building a centralized review infrastructure, so they might be 
> more suitable to
> 
> (1) Document cross-area review criteria.  This would help to educate 
> authors and ad hoc early reviewers in what to look for.
> 
> (2) Develop a process for WG chairs to use existing area review 
> resources (MIB Doctors, GEN-ART, Security directorate, Ops directorate, 
> etc.) to get early review for their documents?  Maybe this could be a 
> proposed "July 14" experiment?

These are both good suggestions. I wonder if the charter of the TOOLs
effort can be twisted a bit to host this work. It's interesting that
we've had two damp squibs (SIRs and now apparently ICAR) but MIB
doctoring, GEN-ART etc seem to be working nicely.

    Brian

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