Re: [Icar] icar futures?

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Mark Allman wrote:
> >   * "we don't need the IESG"
> > 
> >     I agree that we do not need this bit of help from the IESG to get
> >     things started.  I think the broader issue here is that the IESG is
> >     not enthusiastic about ICAR early review.  Is it reasonable to hope
> >     to see this sort of thing widely used without some support from the
> >     IESG?  (Maybe it is... but, I'd like to hear someone argue the
> >     point.)
> 
> The IESG is crucial for this to work.  I'd suggest you ping IESG, 
> through Harald if necessary about this.
> 
> One could ask that each AD tries to list 3-4 persons capable of ICAR
> reviews they know of, and either the AD or you approach these persons 
> 1-on-1, soliciting help.

We pitched this idea to Harald before the last IETF meeting as a way to
seed the pool.  His response in the meeting, as I recall, was that he
didn't think the IESG was up for this.  Rather, he thought they'd help
by picking some WGs.  That did not happen.  Maybe Harald has a comment
to insert here or would like to try again.

> Remember, the fundamental problem is that broadcast don't work... 
> you'll have to approach the people the right way ("you were 
> recommended as a good reviewer, and we need YOUR help...")..

I agree with that fundemental problem.  On the flip side, I worry that
while leaning on people to "volunteer" may produce a longer list of
reviewers, that does not necessarily yield a useful pool at the end of
the day.  It doesn't even take the IESG to get names.  I bet I could add
a bunch of names to the list without too much effort.  And, I bet there
are others who could, as well.  The fundemental question in my mind is
whether this is a useful approach or not.

allman