Re: [Icar] reviewer pools

[David Partain <david.partain at ericsson.com>]

Hi,

On Monday 24 May 2004 14.20, Mark Allman wrote:
> I want to see if we can get some discussion going on how to design pool
> of reviewers for ICAR-type experiments.  Some specific questions that
> jump to mind:
> 
>   + What should the granularity of the reviewer pool be?  Should we have
>     one big pool for the IETF (ala SIRS)?  Or, should their be an area
>     review team?  Or, a WG review team?  Or, a review team specific to
>     each i-d?  (That seems to be the space.  Or, what else could their
>     be?)  Is there any value in having more than one granularity of team
>     and having handoffs or overlap in some fashion?

My take is that we should (at least initially) use the current
area granularity.  It's what we have above the WG level and
I think WG granularity will be unmanageable.  Areas give us
a reasonable administrative level to organize around.

>   + Who should be eligible for these review teams?  E.g., the kind of
>     concrete track record of IETF work outlined in SIRS?  E.g., teams
>     populated by AD "nominations"?  E.g., teams populated by WG chair
>     "nominations"?  E.g., purely voluntary teams with no hard
>     requirements on who can volunteer?

I think this is a hard issue.

Given the "volunteer" nature of the IETF, I think we should let
volunteers prove their worth.  That's why my draft suggests
a volunteer pool.  I believe that adding requirements on who
may review and who may not is going to reduce the chances of
getting sufficient numbers of reviewers.  I realize that this
opens the door to people who perhaps have no business giving
"expert" review, but it also may allow people to gain a track
record as reviewers despite lack of previous experience.

Cheers,

David


_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar