Subject: [MEXT] New ground rules for adopting WG documents and to forward documents to IESG

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:33:15 +0200

Hi,

There is one issue that we (the chairs) have been concerned about lately 
is the lack of energy in some documents. This lack of energy results in 
lack of thorough reviews of the documents and decrease the quality of 
the output of the WG.

In order to address this concern, we propose the following ground rules 
to progress documents in the MEXT WG.

In order for a document to be adopted as a WG document, the document 
MUST have 5 thorough reviews.

Similarly, in order for the document to be sent to the IESG, the 
document MUST have 5 thorough reviews.

So, the proposed procedure is as follows.

The Chairs will issue a call for adoption/WGLC for a given document. The 
call will include a deadline (normally 2 or 3 weeks, as usual). The 
decision of the adoption will be taken when the deadline is over AND 5 
thorough reviews have been received. This means that if the deadline has 
passed and we haven't received the number of reviews, the decision will 
wait until we receive the reviews.

It should be noted that the reviews must be serious, in depth reviews. 
Light reviews will not count as one of the required reviews. There are 
not so clear definition about what a serious review is but i guess we 
all recognize one when we see it.

We propose that we adopt this procedure from now on.

Regards, marcelo
(on behalf of the chairs)

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:30:55 +0200

Hi Marcelo,

Does it mean that any I-D that is able to receive 5 reviews will be
automatically accepted as WG documents? This is a flawed approach.
Ensuring that a document gets sufficient review is something that the chairs
can proactively work on.

I have no problem in the MEXT WG trying this approach to see if you get more
independent reviews vs a document author/editor signing up 5 of his buddies
to submit reviews :)
Is it the number of reviews that matter or the quality of reviews?

Cheers,
-Raj

On 4/17/09 8:33 AM, "Marcelo Bagnulo" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:34:54 +0200

Hi Raj,

replies below...

[email-masked] escribió:
> automatically accepted as WG documents?
by no means
it means that in order to accept a ID, we need rough consensus (as 
always) _and_ 5 reviews.
In other words, what we need is people who have actually seriously 
reviewed the document and reach rough consensus that we need to accept it

>  This is a flawed approach.
>   
i hope that with the clarification above, it makes more sense to you

> Ensuring that a document gets sufficient review is something that the chairs

haven't worked for us so far and believe me, we tried. We tried asking 
people for reviews in indiviudual emails, we have tried doing it in the 
public ml we have tried to get people committing to make reviews when we 
do the recharter process and then remind them about their commitment 
both privately and publicly and while some people do react, we still 
have insufficient level of reviews.
So, we think this approach can improve that

> independent reviews vs a document author/editor signing up 5 of his buddies
right
but the reviews need to be throrough to improve the quality of the document
I mean, if you get a buddy to do a thorough review, it is much better 
that if you get no one to do a thorough review, don't you think?
In other words, the goal of a thorough review is not to destroy the 
document but to make it better. So a buddy can help you with that and 
that is good for the document quality.
Besides, people that dont like the document will comment anyway, whether 
the author like it or not
> Is it the number of reviews that matter or the quality of reviews?
both
in what i mean is that we need a given number of good reviews

as stated in the original mail, we are asking for 5 thorough reviews 
i.e. 5 good reviews of the documents.

makes sense?

regards, marcelo

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:58:45 -0500

This issue is common in many working groups; as a co-chair of other groups, I've been faced with it myself.

I think this is a good approach that the MEXT chairs have outlined.  At least it sets a clear bar and criteria for moving documents forward and eases the burden somewhat of determining when a document is ready to move on.  While the number 5 is somewhat arbitrary and judging thoroughness of a review can be subjective, I don't think these are really worth quibbling about.

Thank you to the MEXT chairs for being proactive about this issue!  I fully support adopting these rules.

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun [[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:33 AM
To: mext; Julien Laganier; Jari Arkko
Subject: [MEXT] New ground rules for adopting WG documents and to forward documents to IESG

Hi,

Regards, marcelo