Re: draft-nottingham-site-meta-03 --> -04

["Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>]

On 2009/10/29 19:13, Alfred � wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:

> The draft-nottingham-site-meta-04 predraft says:
>
> |Appendix C.  Document History
> |
> |  o  -04
> |     *  Restrict to HTTP(S) by default.
> |     *  Shorten review SLA to 14 days.
> |     *  Allow for multiple designated experts.
> |     *  Identify mailing list for request submission and discussion.

> ad 2)  This shortening is a burden for both reviewers and designated
>         experts.  Experience has shown that it is in general unlikely
>         to get feedback in such short timespans because the community
>         is busy in a very bursty manner, and because it is impossible
>         to guarantee such short response time from a single
>         volunteering individual expert all over the year.
>         Having to establish an Expert group for backup does not seem
>         worth the effort and management overhead for such a registry.
>
>         I therefore heartly recommend that no review deadlines shorter
>         than a month should be specified.

I disagree. While it's not always possible to get some replies in two 
weeks, it's important to set expectations. The longer the review period, 
the higher the chance that people put away the review for "later", i.e. 
never.

Also, most other registries I know have two weeks, and I don't see any 
special reason for this registry being much longer.

> ad 3)  As I said above, the overhead of multiple experts seems to be
>         inappropriate for such tiny registry.

It's always better to have multiple experts in case somebody is on 
vacation,...

Regards,   Martin.

--
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp