[Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Wed, 28 April 2004 13:30 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14934 for <icar-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:30:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIoyK-0003bV-Tk for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:19:33 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3SDJWc4013848 for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:19:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIomQ-0000GE-4f for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:07:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13458 for <icar-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIomO-0002jF-6Y for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:07:12 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIolT-0002eX-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:06:16 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIoky-0002Yf-00 for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:05:44 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIoaa-0006k4-Q0; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:55:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BIoYZ-0006Jr-K2 for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:55 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12889 for <icar@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BIoYY-00020k-5m for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:52:54 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BIoXa-0001yC-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:51:55 -0400
Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.154]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BIoX3-0001ue-00 for icar@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:51:22 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.1]) by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SCooYO064286 for <icar@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:50:50 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i3SConHI102556 for <icar@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:50:50 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-169-29.de.ibm.com [9.145.169.29]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA60664 for <icar@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:50:49 +0200
Message-ID: <408FA8B6.30704@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:51:02 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: icar WG <icar@ietf.org>
References: <200404221939.PAA22326@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <200404221939.PAA22326@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt
Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>, <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review <icar.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:icar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>, <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-allman-icar-wg-revcomm-00.txt

This is an interesting concept and I agree it is worth a try.

How will this apply to non-WG drafts?

One element of SIRs that is missing, if we implemented both this
and draft-alvestrand-icar-xarea-00.txt, is the notion of continuity.
SIRs suggested that a reviewer should stay with a document
through its life. If we set up both WG review teams (for early
review) and Area review teams (for late review), we will lose
this continuity. Also, we run a risk of not finding enough reviewers
to staff all these teams.

Two details:

(end of section 2)

>     A committee is formed by consultation between the WG chairs and
>     shepherding AD.  The WG chairs generate a list of potential members,
>     and discuss with the AD about who might be appropriate. After an
>     agreed upon list of members has been generated, the WG chairs
>     contact the committee members to assess their willingness to serve.

I would add here that there will be a pointer to the team
from the WG's charter page.

(in section 4)

>     One issue that arose with the Seamoby review committees is that
>     because the WG is not obliged to accept the review committee's
>     opinion, even if the review committee members are senior and
>     respected people, there is no guarantee that problems identified by
>     the review committee will be addressed by the WG. This is in
>     contrast to review committees for academic conferences and journals,
>     where authors are typically required to address points raised during
>     peer review, or their paper will not be published.

Firstly, this is really only an issue for late review and IESG
approval - if is known to have ignored early review comments,
that will be a strong common-sense signal to the late reviewers
and the IESG.

Secondly, the best defense against this problem is to put all the
reviews into a public archive. I think this goes for *any* review
system we put in place - all reviews should be hyperlinked from
a master page for the I-D in question.

    Brian

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