Subject: [Icar] pool entry; take N

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:30:39 -0400

With my WG co-chair hat on (and, after having consulted with the holder
of the other such hat) ....

Based on the discussion on the list and the discussion at the San Diego
IETF meeting I'd like to propose that we have rough consensus that
subjective entry into the ICAR reviewer pool be based on AD sponsorship.
And, further, we encourage folks to review a variety of documents that
ICAR has been requested to review and present those to the ADs at the
time of requesting sponsorship (but, that there is no magic N that is
required and that sponsorship is not tied to only these reviews).

I understand that some folks don't agree with this approach.  However,
it seems that we do have agreement to have *some* subjective criteria.
And, further, we need to get this experiment going.  I think we have
rough consensus that the above is a reasonable first approach (that can,
as with everything else, be tuned during the experiment).

If you feel this is unreasonable please yell soon (especially if you
have not voice an opinion on this issue in the past).  We'd like to
start some reviewing shortly.

Thanks!

allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:48:48 -0700

Mark,

MA> Based on the discussion on the list and the discussion at the San Diego
MA> IETF meeting I'd like to propose that we have rough consensus that
MA> subjective entry into the ICAR reviewer pool be based on AD sponsorship.
...
MA> If you feel this is unreasonable please yell soon (especially if you

I'm unclear whether the sponsorship mechanism is a way into the pool
that is IN ADDITION to an objective, performance-based mechanism (a la
SIRS) or whether it is the sole way.

If it is in addition, then dandy.  I'm all for it.

If it is a sole way, it is a fundamental mistake, because it guarantees
that the review process will be dominated by the ADs.

However wonderful an AD is, or not, problems with IESG process have been
consistently identified as a source of on-going IETF frustration. Making
this technical review activity be completely subservient to ADs just
adds it to the problem space, rather than letting it operate with a pure
focus on technical issues.

yours, continuing to bang my one note,

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:54:48 -0400

This is in addition to the objective criteria, not instead of them.  THere 
had been an expressed wish by the working group for an additional, 
subjective, mechanism for getting people into the pool.
This is our best read on the rough consensus for such a mechanism.
Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:03:32 -0700

Joel,

JMH> This is in addition to the objective criteria, not instead of them.

 thanks for the clarification.

 more is better.

 please ignore my rant on 'only'.

d/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:02:15 +0200

I'm happy with this, but maybe the co-chairs should check informally
with the IESG that they will be willing to do this.

     Brian

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> This is in addition to the objective criteria, not instead of them.  
> THere had been an expressed wish by the working group for an additional,

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:21:53 -0400

> with the IESG that they will be willing to do this.

We did so, and in the ICAR meeting Harald indicated that this seems OK
(after chatting with the IESG, after Joel and I asked him about it a few
weeks prior to the San Diego meeting).

allman

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:52:40 +0200

> with the IESG that they will be willing to do this.

Did so in San Diego.
As long as they can decide based on reviews, and the normal case is the 
"objective" metrics, they're OK with it.