Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter rev 2

[Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>]

Pekka, Robert, Dimitri-

Thanks for the comments, see below, please.

Friday, January 9, 2004, 7:00:55 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
[...]
> As for the milestones:

>      FEB 2004: Submit drafts on improved community and structured reviews

==>> what does "Submit" mean here?  Submit as personal I-Ds?  Publish 
> as WG I-D's (if so, say so)?

Since this is a WG milestone, a WG document is implied. Strictly
speaking, we don't publish, the secretariat does, after the
authors/editors submit.

> For what it's worth, I'm not 100% sure we can decide, with this 
> aggressive timescale, which of the current individual submissions 
> would be best adopted as WG items (or combined as new proposals to be 
> submitted as WG items)?  Maybe you could clarify what kind of process 
> you had in mind here?

I am not sure either, but we should try to get something ready by
Seoul for a substantial discussion. The way I see it working (though
I'm open to other ideas) is we do the analysis of problems with each
type of review at hand, decide which we problem we can solve, which we
can't, then go back to the features of the proposals on the table,
compare and discuss those and finally assemble solutions that are
documented in WG documents edited by appointed editors.

>      SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved community review to
>                the IESG for publication as BCP
>      SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved structured community review to
>                the IESG for publication as BCP
>      SEP 2005: Evaluate WG progress and potential; close or recharter

==>> Was the last one meant to be SEP 200_4_?

I think it was supposed to be JAN 2005--we need to give some time for
the WG follow up on the possible IETF LC and IESG comments. Thanks for
catching this, I'll update the text.

> For what it's worth, it may be very difficult to find ways to improve
> community review as it is -- I don't believe there have been many
> proposals on that yet.  

Yes, I think the community review problem is not 100% solvable, mainly
because we are dealing with sociological aspects, which we are not
good at. On the other hand, if there's something we can improve, we
should do it.

> Luckily, finding a solution for structured community review (e.g., by
> adding those responsibilities for reviewing documents) has already 
> sparked at least a couple of good proposals, and progressing with that 
> should be much easier.

Indeed. BTW, the difference between these types of review and how they
can potentially be addressed was my motivation behind splitting the
work items.

Friday, January 9, 2004, 10:01:23 AM, Robert Snively wrote:
> I like this much better.

> I am assuming that "structured review" will include some work on the
> review process itself, including perhaps things like the addressing
> of problems identified by the review, a formal response to the
> reviewers, solicitation of both "yes this is perfect" and "no this
> needs the following change" responses, etc.

> Is that correct?  Should we make it explicit?

Yes, I would expect the final product to at least make suggestions on
these aspects. However, I don't think details of this sort should be
in the charter--I consider these part of the "mechanisms" called out
in it.

Friday, January 9, 2004, 3:14:39 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> alex, this revision of the charter proposal looks
> pretty good

> in the last sentence, the word "potential" in the
> last sentence might be further detailed

I suppose you mean in the last milestone. If so, this is just a
standard alias to "do we have useful stuff to work on, or do we
close?"

Alex


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