Re: Guidelines for authors and reviewers

Hi Paul,
   Thanks for the comments. Please see responses inline.

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 5:03 PM -0400 5/30/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> I'm not sure if
>>  > that needs a separate "review netiquette RFC", IMO it should be
>>>  a part of the "Tao", or the next Tao if it is not already clear.
>> Paul Hoffman is working on the TAObis. Maybe he can chime in on this.
> 
> <ching!>
> 
> The past few editions of the Tao do indeed talk about taking reviews 
> with an open mind. The Tao doesn't talk much about *giving* reviews, 
> mostly because the intended audience (IETF newcomers) are mostly 
> interested in learning how to be in the normal IETF structures, like 
> WGs.
> 
> Having said that, I agree with some of what Ted Hardie said about the 
> tone of the document. It sounds like there are instructions to 
> document authors on how they are supposed to act when they get 
> reviews. That's bordering on a revision to RFC 2026, which I don't 
> think is what you intended. "It is polite to" and "some document 
> authors like to" are quite different than "are expected to" and 
> "needs to".

I agree that tone might be a bit strong but this can be easily fixed in 
the document. e.g. Replace

"The authors are expected to respond to the reviews within a
  reasonable amount of time."

with

"It is considered polite to respond to the reviews within a
  reasonable amount of time.

but it might be more tricky to define "reasonable amount of time". Do 
you feel that it is out of the scope of this document to define this? If 
so, we can take it out of the document. But doing so diminishes the 
guiding value of the document.

> 
> This document emphasizes reviews going to authors instead of reviews 
> going to WGs or, in the case of individual submissions, reviews going 
> to mailing lists. In the Tao, we emphasize the value of 
> communications to groups so that the group can agree, amplify, show 
> disinterest, or disagree. In the WGs I have co-chaired, the WG got 
> good value out of some of the GenART and SecDir reviews in that it 
> made the whole WG think about the topics brought up. This may be a 
> fundamental difference in view between this document's authors and my 
> preferences, but I think the discussion of where reviewers should be 
> sending their reviews is an important one for the IETF community to 
> have.

Agree. And this topic (the recipient list of the review) is something I 
think hard about before I send out any review.

Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf