Re: Late review management (Re: [Icar] independence of reviews; variability)

--On 12. mars 2004 10:30 -0500 Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> Avri> My hypothesis  is that early  reviews, especially if they  are
> tightly Avri> linked with the with the IESG and AD, will be more likely
> to point out Avri> how to come in line with the AD's agenda.
>
> Excellent point.  I  had assumed that the "earlier,  wider reviews" would
> be harder for the ADs to control very closely (for reasons of scale, if
> nothing else), but perhaps that assumption is wrong.  If the effect of
> early reviews is help  special interest  groups have  more impact on  the
> WGs  rather than less, we won't have made much progress.

if early review works, it will certainly give more influence to the people 
who do the reviews.........

> This  all  comes  back to  the  underlying  issue  of whether  "the
> general interest"  is best served  by applying  a variety  of
> perspectives  (which I think means  a variety of people  with independent
> perspectives,  and by the marketplace), or whether it is best  served by
> having all the decisions made by a small  group of know-it-alls.  This
> is one of the issues  on which the problem-statement group failed to
> agree.

I don't know if there is a real conflict of theories here, or one of 
perspectives - in these discussions, I find that people seem to argue that 
the process they don't like (whether it's the IETF, the IESG or the WG) is 
a "small group of know-it-alls", while the process they like (whether it's 
the multiperspective review of the IESG or the review from a wider 
audience) is "a variety of people with independent perspectives".

Wide review seems to be "motherhood and apple pie" - the question we're 
debating is, I think, how to achieve it.

                    Harald

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