RE: [Icar] icar futures?
"Robert Snively" <rsnively@Brocade.COM> Thu, 14 October 2004 15:21 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29580 for <icar-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CI7b4-0004Zx-5q for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:32:55 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CI7Oi-0004f2-1c; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:20:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CI7Bx-0001OS-JB for icar@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:06:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28210 for <icar@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail75.messagelabs.com ([216.82.255.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CI7Mv-0004IY-4P for icar@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:18:17 -0400
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: rsnively@Brocade.COM
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-75.messagelabs.com!1097766370!12903548
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.243.153.112]
Received: (qmail 24836 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2004 15:06:10 -0000
Received: from f112.brocade.com (HELO discus.brocade.com) (66.243.153.112) by server-4.tower-75.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2004 15:06:10 -0000
Received: from hq-ex-4.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-4 [192.168.38.93]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14111F326A; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hq-ex-6.corp.brocade.com ([192.168.38.36]) by hq-ex-4.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:06:09 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Icar] icar futures?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:06:09 -0700
Message-ID: <66CFE0CA1DDEB54493E63A2C7C52924608CE52@hq-ex-6.brocade.com>
Thread-Topic: [Icar] icar futures?
Thread-Index: AcSx5XitNu2G6DB6QXK4Ssdq4F3qGgAF1aLA
From: Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>
To: mallman@icir.org, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2004 15:06:09.0913 (UTC) FILETIME=[567E9690:01C4B1FF]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>, icar@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review <icar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>, <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: icar-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: icar-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My previously stated and present view is that reviews are only meaningful when performed by deeply interested and involved parties. That commitment is in most respects more important than the actual knowledge base of overall IETF activities held by a reviewer. The IETF viewpoints may be impressed upon the review process during the comment resolution process as necessary. The way to get meaningful reviews is to find those people who are truly interested and motivated. This often (but not always) means they must have a commercial interest in the result. Those people may or may not have been active in IETF in the past, so IETF is going to have to do outreach to the obvious candidate organizations that have shown an interest in the area being reviewed. That outreach must be both across the IETF membership and outside to other related standards organizations and industry organizations. Thus my continuing wish for active external liaison activities and broadly targeted solicitation of reviews. Making a call for "reviewers" in general will usually have the results you have seen here. Until you have a particular document that is important to a person, that person will simply not volunteer to review it. IESG actions and arm-twisting activities will not change that meaningfully. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: icar-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:icar-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Mark Allman > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:38 AM > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: Scott W Brim; icar@ietf.org > Subject: 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Spencer Dawkins
- [Icar] icar futures? Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Scott W Brim
- [Icar] Re: icar futures? Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Pekka Savola
- My excuse, and a suggestion [Re: [Icar] icar futu… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Mark Allman
- RE: [Icar] icar futures? Robert Snively
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Scott W Brim
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Dave Crocker
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Scott W Brim
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Alex Rousskov
- [Icar] Why I haven't signed up for ICAR Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Icar] icar futures? Lucy E. Lynch