Subject: Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zinin-icar-arts-00.txt

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:45:51 -0700

--On 26. mars 2004 06:48 -0600 Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> FWIW, I read almost all Brian's comments as "somebody besides ADs and
> WG chairs needs to be worried about getting review that is wide enough
> and early enough, and document authors/editors are the obvious
> stuckees". I agree.
>
> It's pretty tempting to slap out a proposal that assumes that the
> management structure needs to do something, but we'd be better off if
> everyone contributed. I know it's hard to step back, but I'd ask
> people to try to think about ICAR as a community responsibility, and
> not just another thing for ADs and WG chairs to worry about.

agree heartily with the sentiment, but I'm afraid of the crowd syndrome - 
if everyone's responsible, nobody's responsible. And the WG chair *has* to 
know what's happening to the WG's documents.

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:17:12 -0500

Hi, Harald,

Actually, I WAS hoping for a slightly larger crowd, but only slightly
larger - if I understood Brian, he suggested including working group
document editors in the rugby scrum, along with ADs and WG chairs. My
apologies for the inadvertant "everyone" in the second paragraph.

Now that we don't have more authors than lines on the first page of a
draft, editors should be a bit LESS scary... but, as I'm looking at
what I'm typing, some of the twenty-author drafts needed review the
most, don't you think?

Spencer

From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:02:01 +0200

It's clear that the *responsibility* has to be on identified individuals
such as WG chairs, secretaries and maybe formal document editors. But
that doesn't mean we shouldn't also encourage document authors to use
the review process.

Ottherwise there is a sort of deadly embrace possible: a first draft is
quite bad, nobody reviews it to tell the author what's wrong, so the WG
never adopts it, so the author takes it to another organization,
and we end up with the worst of all worlds.

   Brian