Re: Revised idea for early cross-area review

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>]

In message <BF8FA995.3888%mshore at cisco.com>, Melinda Shore writes:
>On 11/3/05 11:27 AM, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> This provision concerns me a great deal -- there's no load-leveling or
>> load-limiting.  When I'm asked to review documents as part of my role
>> in the security directorate, I know that the ADs are spreading the load.
>> Here, any individual WG chair is unaware of what his or her colleagues
>> are doing.
>
>Reviewers can always say "no," or better still, "no, but talk to <x>,"
>and do their own load management.  It seems to me that the reason
>early review experiments have failed so far is that there's been a lack
>of volunteers for the reviewer pool (and I've been remiss about this,
>myself), so the risk is that there won't be sufficient resources to
>review some number of documents.  I hope that in the worst case those
>documents won't turn out to be any worse than they are now, so we'd
>still be ahead, I think.
>

Maybe -- but I think going through the area directorates is a better 
approach.


		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb