Re: [Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> This has the advantage of doing something now with the resources that
> we have now ("contents may settle due to shipping").
>
> Thoughts and comments?

One additional concern on ICAR: if there is no "ICAR manager" (such 
that I have been calling for), the likely result is either that the 
folks will try to get the reviews from the minority who are known to 
produce good (and critical) reviews, or from that class of reviewers, 
who are known to not be too critical about their business.

Either way is bad: the first for loading the best reviewers and not 
educating the others; the second for not actually delivering a good 
review and giving an impression that review has been conducted.

In any case, approaching people 1-on-1 is likely to result in longer 
timeouts if the first person(s) don't reply immediately, promise to 
review but don't deliver, requiring you to start from scratch, etc.

So, my thoughts are:
  1) motivation for being a reviewer is a bit lacking.  There was 
idea to create yet another 'dot'.  Maybe this would be enough. Did 
this get dropped?  This is probably needed at least after an 
experimental phase.
  2) an ICAR 'manager' might help in managing the pool, at least at a 
later phase.
  3) let's try to find a pool of 5-10 people: that should be enough to 
bootstrap an experiment with about 2 WGs per major areas (I'd hope).

That said, because I believe this is an important issue, I'm willing 
to volunteer though I'm too busy with other IETF activities as it is.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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