Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 November 2019 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949E912094A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cgu8uOVHXa6J for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:25:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A90C12093A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691DA3897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:22:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5284C913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
cc: "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
In-Reply-To: <15BCDF05-FB13-45D2-A5DF-70618EBA1A5A@gmail.com>
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43669E4CEF13CDA51A764F9AB5790@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20191.1573054128@localhost> <15BCDF05-FB13-45D2-A5DF-70618EBA1A5A@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 12:25:20 -0500
Message-ID: <9182.1573147520@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CkUGFpWym895UT2MKqhv1t8lii8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:25:24 -0000

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved
    >>> them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.
    >>
    >> +10.
    >>
    >>> This could serve two purposes:
    >>> - some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
    >>> - encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting.
    >>
    >> I've also suggested that the XML for the acknowledgement section be
    >> structured so that we could extract this information better.

    > All of this (reviewers, Shepard, AD reviews, ballots, etc.) is captured
    > in the datatracker currently.   I am not sure why it would also need to
    > be in the document.

Because the datatracker is an ephermeral (by historic scales of time)
database, while the RFCs are etched in stone.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-