Subject: [Gen-art] FW: [Gen-art-private] GenART document updated

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:06:09 -0500

Spencer pointed out that I had only sent my response to him - that was
unintentional.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:49 AM
To: 'Spencer Dawkins'
Subject: RE: [Gen-art-private] GenART document updated

Hi Spencer,

This is a valid concern, however, I really think it has to be up to the
reviewer.  I did update the document to reflect that when you do send to
the IETF discussion list that you must cc the author.  I personally
think that not all reviews need to go to the IETF list for several
reasons:
1) The Ready reviews and those that are just nits or suggestions to
rewrite for clarification or in particular when folks have questions
just add noise IMHO.  
2) My experience is that it's far more problematic when things go to the
IETF discussion list that really should go to authors first (or at least
cc authors!) so they can clarify things - I personally have a very
recent experience with this that I have yet to untangle.  IMHO, the only
reason why the IETF discussion list is suggested is for the same reason
that gen-art folks don't want to send to WG mailing lists - it's not
practical, so the IETF discussion list is the default place for lack of
a better place. 
3) The gen-art reviews are public and we are actually the most open of
the review teams IMHO - i.e., we can't get to sec-dir archives and they
typically are sent to a much smaller subset of folks than the gen-art
reviews (in my experience). So, it certainly isn't at all difficult for
anyone that wants to augment a gen-art review to go out to the
spreadsheet at the end of IETF-LC and review the comments and provide
any additional feedback they deem is necessary. Again, my experience is
that the comments that do come in via the IETF discussion list are
almost always late. 

That all said, I can update the document and guidelines to reflect
whatever you all think is best. But, I would still have concerns over
email explosions if we do this.   

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:34 AM
To: Private Gen-ART Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Gen-art-private] GenART document updated

Dear Mary,

Thanks for your quick response to my suggestions.

I've got one open item left, and it's not something you and I can decide
on our own...

Dear Gen-ART,

Mary and Russ are being pretty consistent (from what I can tell) in
saying "Gen-ART Last Call comments are the same as everyone else's Last
Call comments" - but the IESG has stated a preferred venue for Last Call
comments (the IETF discussion list, with the IESG list as an alternative
in exceptional cases), and has stated a preferred format (reply to the
Last Call announcement, and don't change the subject line).

Almost none of us do that, as you point out in your response. That kind
of blows the "we're the same as everybody else" meme. We might BE
"special", but I'd like us to decide that explicitly.

Full disclosure: I started sending last call reviews to the IETF
discussion list long after we started providing reviews at Last Call
time, and my review last week was the first one where I've EVER replied
to the Last Call announcement so I had the requested subject line, so my
hands aren't clean here.

o Not a problem? Spencer should go back to sleep, or at least to his day
job, and ADs, working group chairs, working group participants, and
authors will see our reviews in a variety of venues with a variety of
subject lines?

o We could actually agree to use the format the IESG requests for Last
Call comments, sending our reviews to the IETF list if it's more than
"ready for publication", and (maybe) to the IESG list if it's "ready for
publication"?

o We could actually agree on what we would all do, which may not be the
same as what everyone else does at Last Call comment time, and write
that down?

I don't want to just ask Russ what the answer is here before asking
other reviewers what makes sense to them. I know that some people have
expressed concern that the IETF discussion list is not a reasonable
place to send review comments for drafts at last call time, for example.
I'm assuming Russ would like to know what we're seeing before stating an
opinion, and before talking to other ADs if that's appropriate.

What makes sense to you?

Thanks,

Spencer 

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