Re: [Icar] icar futures?

["Alex Rousskov" <rousskov at measurement-factory.com>]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:21:54 -0400, Mark Allman <mallman at icir.org> wrote:

>   * the call for reviewers for the ICAR experiment netted 7 reviewers

This is not surprising to me, given the audience the call covered (less
than 10% of IETFers?), the incentives offered for reviewers
(virtually none) combined with IETF-wide level of excitement about the  
project
(marginal) and no easy way to join for most IETF participants with time
on their hands. IIRC, this outcome is even worse than I predicted when we
were arguing about pool models and solicitation tactics on this list.

I can only repeat what I have suggested before: provide some nice  
incentives
for reviewers, ask prominent IETFers to plug the experiment every time they
address an audience, praise existing reviewers on plenaries and web site,
think about getting commercial sponsors involved, etc. Good marketing is
required to sell something that the buyer does not need.

We may still fail to attract enough reviewers long-term, but we may at  
least get
enough of them for the initial experiment. If we still do not get enough,
we should close the WG or change the pool model.

Most of the above suggestions would require strong support from IESG, I  
guess.

Alex.


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