Subject: [Gen-art] Updating and publishing the Gen-ART FAQ list

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:09:24 -0600

I noticed (and I may not have been the only one) about a month ago that we 
Gen-ART reviewers are starting to assume that Gen-ART is fairly widely 
understood (to the point of saying things like "everybody knows about 
Gen-ART, right?"), but Gen-ART has never been presented to the IETF 
community as a whole, and even newbies like Fred Baker (I am kidding) don't 
know who we are, why we are annoying the editors, and what they should do 
next after we provide a review.

We knocked out a very quick FAQ just prior to IETF 64, and had a few 
comments on it, but we were all in last-minute mode; if you see anything 
that looks unclear or questionable, please let us all know, so we can put 
the FAQ someplace well-known, and reviewers can all refer to the same 
information (and our posted reviews can be a bit shorter).

Thanks,

Spencer

p.s. JohnL used the most current FAQ text available, but it still had a 
couple of needed changes reflecting Scott Brim's note to the list. I've made 
the edits reflecting Scott's comments, and note that Brian still needs to 
confirm whether new volunteer reviewers contact the General Area Director or 
the Gen-ART secretary (and the 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewer-list.html URL needs to 
reflect the right answer).

Q: What is Gen-ART?
A: The General Area Review Team. They provide gneralist reviews for the
General Area director (currently the IETF Chair), providing an
additional set of eyes for documents as they are being considered for
publication.

Q: Who is Gen-ART?
A: The current membership list is maintained at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewer-list.html. We do accept
new reviewers - volunteers should contact the Gen-ART secretary (see
below) < NOTE that this phrasing is Brian's, but the URL actually says
"contact the General Area director" - we just need to say the same thing
in both places>

Q: What does the Gen-ART secretary do and how do I find him/her?
A: The Gen-ART secretary is also listed on the membership page. The
Gen-ART secretary tracks documents submitted for publication and assigns
them to reviewers, and collects the reviews, posting them to
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html.

Q: Why is my document being reviewed?
A: Two possible answers - most Gen-ART reviews are now assigned at IETF
Last Call time (answer #1). If a document is revised after IETF Last
Call, or is processed so quickly that no Gen-ART reviewer has been
assigned, it's reviewed after being placed on the IESG Telechat agenda
(answer #2).

Q: How was my Gen-ART reviewer selected?
A: There is a mechanism, but it's more about leveling the review workload 
than selecting reviewers based on topic areas. Gen-ART reviewers are 
supposed to provide generalist reviews to Gen-ART (when reviewers are 
experts in a particular field, they should provide expert review to the 
working group, prior to IETF Last Call), so reviewers may recuse themselves 
("I've read this spec too many times to act as Gen-ART reviewer"). The same 
Gen-ART reviewer will be assigned for IETF Last Call reviews and telechat 
reviews of a single specification, if the reviewer is available to provide 
both reviews.

Q: Are the reviews public or private?
A: The reviews are sent to the Gen-ART mailing list (which includes the
General Area director). Ordinarily, copies are sent to shepherding ADs,
document shepherds, working group chairs, and authors/editors, but the
archives are publically viewable, at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/index.html.

Q: Are Gen-ART comments binding?
A: Not unless the General Area director agrees with the comments.
Gen-ART does not have a formal role in the standards approval process -
we're simply providing input for the General Area director who is
deciding how to ballot the document. If the General Area director agrees
with a serious concern expressed in a Gen-ART review, the General Area
director may ask the Gen-ART reviewer, "does the new version of the
draft address your concerns?"

Q: I have comments from a Gen-ART reviewer - do I revise the document
immediately?
A: Ask your AD/document shepherd. Practice varies between areas. A fair
number of comments area resolved with Notes to the RFC Editor. But the
General Area director will not ask for a respin before a telechat.

Q: What if the Gen-ART reviewer is just flat wrong?
A: The General Area director understands that these are reviews by 
generalists who are not experts in every protocol the IETF works on, plus 
security and MIBs. If you disagree with comments, say so. The gen-art 
reviewers *want* to hear feedback.  They want to learn more about your area, 
and appreciate feedback about how helpful their comments are. And always 
remember that the IESG ballot position is called "DISCUSS", not "IMPERIAL 
EDICT" or "BLACKMAIL".

Q: Is there any written Gen-ART procedure?
A: Currently
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-doria-genart-experience-01.txt
,
and - guess what - we're still reviewing it :-)

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:47:05 -0500

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 07:09:24AM -0600, Spencer Dawkins allegedly wrote:
> couple of needed changes reflecting Scott Brim's note to the list. I've 
> made the edits reflecting Scott's comments, and note that Brian still needs 
> to confirm whether new volunteer reviewers contact the General Area 
> Director or the Gen-ART secretary (and the 

I'm happy.  Thanks.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:06:08 +0100

Rather than wasting cycles fine-tuning, let's just post this.

> Brian still needs to confirm whether new volunteer reviewers contact the General Area Director or the Gen-ART secretary (and the http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewer-list.html URL needs to reflect the right answer). 

OK, for consistency let's say they contact the General AD.

Mary, can you add a link to the FAQ at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html ?

      Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I noticed (and I may not have been the only one) about a month ago that 
> we Gen-ART reviewers are starting to assume that Gen-ART is fairly 
> widely understood (to the point of saying things like "everybody knows 
> about Gen-ART, right?"), but Gen-ART has never been presented to the 
> IETF community as a whole, and even newbies like Fred Baker (I am 
> kidding) don't know who we are, why we are annoying the editors, and 
> what they should do next after we provide a review.
> 
> that looks unclear or questionable, please let us all know, so we can 
> put the FAQ someplace well-known, and reviewers can all refer to the 
> same information (and our posted reviews can be a bit shorter).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> made the edits reflecting Scott's comments, and note that Brian still 
> needs to confirm whether new volunteer reviewers contact the General 
> Area Director or the Gen-ART secretary (and the 
> A: There is a mechanism, but it's more about leveling the review 
> workload than selecting reviewers based on topic areas. Gen-ART 
> reviewers are supposed to provide generalist reviews to Gen-ART (when 
> reviewers are experts in a particular field, they should provide expert 
> review to the working group, prior to IETF Last Call), so reviewers may 
> recuse themselves ("I've read this spec too many times to act as Gen-ART 
> reviewer"). The same Gen-ART reviewer will be assigned for IETF Last 
> Call reviews and telechat reviews of a single specification, if the 
> reviewer is available to provide both reviews.
> 
> generalists who are not experts in every protocol the IETF works on, 
> plus security and MIBs. If you disagree with comments, say so. The 
> gen-art reviewers *want* to hear feedback.  They want to learn more 
> about your area, and appreciate feedback about how helpful their 
> comments are. And always remember that the IESG ballot position is 
> called "DISCUSS", not "IMPERIAL EDICT" or "BLACKMAIL".
>