Re: [Icar] reviewer pools

[Mark Allman <mallman at icir.org>]

I am not arguing for one way or the other, just trying to explore ...

> 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?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on area review teams(*) then.
That makes things much more explicit ... i.e., "we need a reviewer from
the security team" rather than fishing around a large general pool (as
you note is your preference) for someone who can cover security
documents.  Does pre-sorting make for a system that is less prone to
"gaps"?  (Of course, with some alternate downsides, maybe.)

(*) A thought that just popped into my head is that "area teams"
    wouldn't necessarily have to fall along traditional boundaries -
    but, might.  Call them "topic teams" or something.  We could have
    topic teams on security (traditional IETF area) and architecture
    (not an area), for instance.  Just throwing it out there ... I am
    not sold on it.

Thanks!

allman

Attachment: pgpEHY4S6rQPI.pgp
Description: PGP signature