Re: [Icar] an early review experiment

Most of these comments, while fair concerns, seem to be primarily addressed 
to the general question of how working groups manage comments.  General 
working group process is probably outside of the scope of this working group.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: To be specific, I do not think that the ICAR working group can direct 
that working groups should (much less must) have problem trackers, and 
should (or must) address all comments received, regardless of source.  Even 
though those may be good ideas.

At 01:33 PM 5/19/2004 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>On Wed, 19 May 2004, Mark Allman wrote:
>
> > If I were to sketch the "weighyness" space of early, cross area
> > reviews, it'd be something like this:
> >
> >   + one end of the spectrum would be that ICAR-type comments must be
> >     addressed before the document moves forward
> >
> >   + the other end of the space seems to me to be that the ICAR-type
> >     reviews are just like any other review that comes in from a
> >     community member (i.e., no special status)
> >
> >   + there may be middle ground
> >
> > It'd be nice to hear thoughts on where folks are in this space.
>
>IMO, WG MUST publicly address all reviewer concerns, but can do so any
>way it wants. WG MAY reject to act on any comment, for any reason, but
>MUST publicly document that the comment is rejected and SHOULD
>document rejection rationale.  IESG SHOULD NOT review documents with
>unaddressed concerns.
>
>For these rules to be meaningful/effective, there has to be a
>mechanism/tool to register specific concerns and WG responses to them
>(e.g., ID Tracker DISCUSS items on steroids). Just exchanging freeform
>e-mails is not good enough.
>
>It seems to me that same rules should apply to any review, regardless
>of its source. There may be periods when WG does not accept reviews
>for specific documents though (because they are not ready for any kind
>of review or because the WG has finished working on them and wants
>IESG to take over).
>
>One simple way to manage review timings is to have both First Call and
>Last Call for each draft (at least). These calls will make it clear
>when reviews are welcome (and when reviewer comments are virtually
>guaranteed to be addressed).
>
>I do not know whether the above fits any of the three bullets you
>proposed. It seems lile the second bullet because all reviews have the
>same status (but I would call that status "special" compared to the
>current "no special status" situation), but it also matches the intent
>of the first bullet as far as final IESG action is concerned.
>
>HTH,
>
>Alex.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Icar mailing list
>Icar@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

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