Re: [Icar] reviewer pools

[Melinda Shore <mshore at cisco.com>]

On Monday, May 24, 2004, at 08:20 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
>   + 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?

It seems to me that this question is at least a little related to the
question of the role of the "technical adviser" assigned to some
working groups.  I'm not sure that function is working very well, but
assuming it is, having a per-wg review team would appear to overlap
with the technical advisor.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Another related question is how the reviewers are selected or assigned.
My preference is to have a general pool of reviewers and have the 
reviewers
get per-document review responsibility, but that implies that there's
someone shepherding the document review, as well, and making sure that
it happens in a timely way and doesn't just drop through the cracks.
That person would request the review.  My primary concern with how
the reviewer pool functions is the possibility of gaps in coverage,
either due to expertise or availability, and I think I would tend
to optimize how reviewers are selected/provided around that issue -
how do you ensure that every document that needs review gets it?

Melinda


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