Mark,
MA> Based on the discussion on the list and the discussion at the San
Diego
MA> IETF meeting I'd like to propose that we have rough consensus that
MA> subjective entry into the ICAR reviewer pool be based on AD
sponsorship.
...
MA> If you feel this is unreasonable please yell soon (especially if you
I'm unclear whether the sponsorship mechanism is a way into the pool
that is IN ADDITION to an objective, performance-based mechanism (a la
SIRS) or whether it is the sole way.
If it is in addition, then dandy. I'm all for it.
If it is a sole way, it is a fundamental mistake, because it guarantees
that the review process will be dominated by the ADs.
However wonderful an AD is, or not, problems with IESG process have been
consistently identified as a source of on-going IETF frustration. Making
this technical review activity be completely subservient to ADs just
adds it to the problem space, rather than letting it operate with a pure
focus on technical issues.
yours, continuing to bang my one note,
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>
_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
