Re: [Icar] icar-experiment-early-review-00 comments

[Mark Allman <mallman at icir.org>]

(WG chair hat off)

> 5.1  Who requests a review
> 
> ==> this doesn't specify what happens to the review requests which do
> not come from WG chairs/secretaries or ADs.  In particular, if a doc
> author wants to get review of his shiny -00 submission nobody else has
> bothered to comment.....

If the shiny -00 is a WG document or a WG is thinking about it then a WG
chair / secratary can handle it.

If it is to be submitted to IESG independent of a WG then an AD can
handle it.

Then there are the others.  Two thoughts...

  * It could just get to be a mess if an author is requesting reviews
    and a WG chair is also requesting reviews because they each think
    they should.  (E.g., on an independent submission that is within the
    sphere of a WG, but not technically a WG item.)  In principle, this
    could be accounted for if the automated system was savvy enough, I
    suppose.

  * But, really... IMO, nobody has convinced me that I need to care
    about these documents.  If an author can't get enough buy-in from a
    WG (/AD) to get that WG to request review as part of the "should we
    take this on as a WG item" process then why are we bothering to
    expend reviewer cycles?  I just don't follow this.

(WG chair hat dusted off and put back on)

It'd be nice to hear more comments on this issue.

allman


--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

Attachment: pgpDd8F6xWR2a.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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