Subject: Re: [Icar] an early review experiment

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:08:12 -0400

(I should not be allowed to write email.)

> If I were to sketch the "weighyness" space of early, cross area reviews,
> it'd be something like this:
> 
>   + one end of the spectrum would be that ICAR-type comments must be
>     addressed before the document moves forward
> 
>   + the other end of the space seems to me to be that the ICAR-type
>     reviews are just like any other review that comes in from a
>     community member (i.e., no special status)
> 
>   + there may be middle ground
> 
> It'd be nice to hear thoughts on where folks are in this space.  

Let me revise the first bullet above ...

  + one end of the spectrum would be that ICAR-type comments must be
    followed before the document moves forward (i.e., these comments are
    binding on the WG and the WG must fix the document accordingly)

allman

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:48:11 -0400

Allison-

Thanks for the note.

> In my experience of quite a few AD reviewss (and those of AD's
> directorates), there's a steep learning curve for cross-area review,
> and also a difficult line between when something is actually a working
> group consensus matter rather than a cross-area matter.  My experience
> is that the IESG learns how best to cross-area review from reviewing
> each others' reviews and from reviewing hundreds of documents in all
> the areas.  There are certainlly other ways to get there, but we have
> no handle on this now.

Ah, that's a nice bit of experience.  Thanks for sharing.  So, it seems
that there could (at some point; not immediately) there could be some
interaction with the EDU team to see if there are ways to bootstrap
folks (although, I suspect that experience in doing such reviews is
going to be the most important aspect here).

Thanks!

allman