[Icar] A modest proposal for moving forward with ICAR

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

My apologies in advance for reporting what seems like a coherent idea
that popped out during discussions with Pekka and Joel last night, but
I'd like to suggest a next step for ICAR that takes into account some
realities we're facing here.

- we need experience with ICAR reviews before nailing down new process
 BCPs,
- we have some ICAR reviewers signed up, but probably not enough to do
 ICAR IETF-wide yet,
- we have a lot of reasons to do ICAR reviews, so I think we need to
 focus on one to get started
- I'm making structural suggestions during document reviews for
 Gen-ART ("late reviews"), that people agree are helpful but WAY too
 late in the process,
- we evolve our specifications from individual contributions under
 author control to working group documents under working group 
control,
 in most cases, and
- we don't even have a BCP that talks about what it means to "adopt
 a draft as a working group".

Howzabout we

- identify an AD who is willing to commit one or more working groups
 as experiment fodder,
- assign ICAR reviewers to any individual drafts that are adopted
 as WG items
- review for document structure and completeness THEN, so
 draft-ietf-WG-mumble-00.txt is always our best effort, and
- report the reviews and experiences with this experiment in
 Minneapolis?

This has the advantage of doing something now with the resources that
we have now ("contents may settle due to shipping").

Thoughts and comments?

Spencer 



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