Re: [Icar] reviewer pools

[Melinda Shore <mshore at cisco.com>]

On Monday, May 24, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Mark Allman wrote:
> 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.)

I'm not sure.  We're stretched as thin as can be on security
reviewers today, for example.  Will having a more formal review
process make more security reviewers available?  Probably not.

I asked SIRS to review one document for midcom.  We got three
reviews out of it.  They were all useful, and one of the really
interesting things that happened is that at least one of the
reviewers hadn't been familiar with our work or, I think,
with the area (border policy enforcement) in general, and that
brought a valuable fresh pair of eyes to the document.

Part of the question is related to when the review happens, too -
earlier in the process you need someone that brings a macro
perspective to the entire problem, and later in the process,
presumably the macro questions have been answered and you need
someone with more specific, focused expertise to address particular
problems within the documents.

The issue I'm interested in seeing cross-area review deal with
is the broad problem of working groups starting out well and
somehow going off the rails early on.  That, I think, benefits
from wisdom and experience rather than specific area expertise.

Melinda


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