Subject: [Icar] icar-experiment-early-review-00 comments

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:49:02 +0300 (EEST)

a couple of short comments on the  icar consensus doc..

semi-substantial
----------------

5.1  Who requests a review

==> this doesn't specify what happens to the review requests which do not
come from WG chairs/secretaries or ADs.  In particular, if a doc author
wants to get review of his shiny -00 submission nobody else has bothered to
comment.....

editorial
---------

Quite apart from
       the ICAR process, any member of the IETF community may, of
       course, review a WG document at any time s/he wishes and provide
       that input to the WG.

==> this should maybe be generalized a bit for the case where it isn't a WG
document (but individual submission to an AD).  This cornercase seems to be
missing from a couple of places in the draft..

   o  people who have authored 2 IETF RFCs approved for publication by
      the IESG, which includes non-WG documents submitted directly to
      the IESG, but not documents submitted directly to the RFC editor

==> This should probably be clearer worded like:

   o  people who have authored at least 2 IETF RFCs approved for publication by
      the IESG (which also includes non-WG documents submitted directly to
      the IESG, but not documents submitted directly to the RFC editor)

   o  current WG chairs whose WG has produced 2 RFCs

==> .. at least 2 ... ;-)  -- not sure if this is pedantically required
though..

  It is up to the WG chair(s) / secretary to choose the reviewers who
   review the document. In order to do this, reviewers in the pool must
   be clearly labeled with their area(s) of expertise they feel
   qualified to provide .

==> ... "input on"

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:00:02 -0400

(WG chair hat off)

> ==> this doesn't specify what happens to the review requests which do
> not come from WG chairs/secretaries or ADs.  In particular, if a doc
> author wants to get review of his shiny -00 submission nobody else has
> bothered to comment.....

If the shiny -00 is a WG document or a WG is thinking about it then a WG
chair / secratary can handle it.

If it is to be submitted to IESG independent of a WG then an AD can
handle it.

Then there are the others.  Two thoughts...

  * It could just get to be a mess if an author is requesting reviews
    and a WG chair is also requesting reviews because they each think
    they should.  (E.g., on an independent submission that is within the
    sphere of a WG, but not technically a WG item.)  In principle, this
    could be accounted for if the automated system was savvy enough, I
    suppose.

  * But, really... IMO, nobody has convinced me that I need to care
    about these documents.  If an author can't get enough buy-in from a
    WG (/AD) to get that WG to request review as part of the "should we
    take this on as a WG item" process then why are we bothering to
    expend reviewer cycles?  I just don't follow this.

(WG chair hat dusted off and put back on)

It'd be nice to hear more comments on this issue.

allman

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:11:36 -0400

> chair / secratary can handle it.

For early review I think I'd prefer that the wg chair or
secretary handle it, as well.  If the AD thinks there's an
issue, he or she can let the wg chair know that there's a need
for a review.

> If it is to be submitted to IESG independent of a WG then an AD can

I agree.  What I really don't want to see is the reviewer pool, which I
think needs to be regarded as a scarce and precious resource,
being used to review drafts at the request of an author.  That can be
handled through the usual mechanisms (posting a "hey, look at this" 
message
to the appropriate mailing list, contacting interested people out-of-
band, etc.).

Melinda

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:49:24 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I agree.  What I really don't want to see is the reviewer pool,
> which I think needs to be regarded as a scarce and precious
> resource, being used to review drafts at the request of an author.  
> That can be handled through the usual mechanisms (posting a "hey,
> look at this"  message to the appropriate mailing list, contacting
> interested people out-of- band, etc.).

This was precisely my point -- I think the doc or the process needs to
have a good understanding how it will handle the authors who request
reviews of their half-baked ideas (when they shouldn't).

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:43:38 -0700

Folks,

PS> 5.1  Who requests a review

This is the sort of section that nicely demonstrates some core problems
in IETF process.  The problem that this sub-section is trying to solve
is real.  If there is no coordination in making requests, then things
really are a mess.

The question is whether we have made things better by micro-managing
working group internal operations in this document.  Not surprisingly, I
think we have made them worse.

If the document says something like:  "it is the the working group's
responsibility to obtain necessary reviews", then the document has said
all it needs to.  It has made clear the responsibility and has left the
details to the folks who have to do the work.

Think of all the other micro-events that we do not -- and should not --
dictate in the life of a working group.

One of the benefits of a well-run IETF working group is its freedom to
organize in a way that works for that particular topic and that
particular set of participants.

Let's not take that away.

(A nice side-effect of such simplification of the icar spec is that the
icar working group gets done quicker.)

PS> This was precisely my point -- I think the doc or the process needs to
PS> have a good understanding how it will handle the authors who request
PS> reviews of their half-baked ideas (when they shouldn't).

along the lines of Melinda's comment: the icar mechanism really is
tailored for formal working group efforts, and so requests come formally
from the working group.  that should provide enough of a filter, no?

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:34:09 +0200

> to the appropriate mailing list, contacting interested people out-of-

When I first read the suggestion of "AD can handle it", my AD-load alarms 
went off - we have problems with getting cycles to handle independent 
submissions for the standards track that the author thinks is ready today, 
and doing it earlier in the process wouldn't make it easier (methinks).

But after thinking for a few minutes, it looks more reasonable; if the 
NORMAL path for a non-WG submission for review is through a WG chair of a 
relevant WG (it doesn't have to be a WG document), it's OK to say that "if 
an AD feels the need to have a document reviewed, he/she can ask for it".

So we get a statement saying:

- A WG chair can request review for a document he/she finds relevant to the 
WG
- An AD can request review of any document
- Neither one is obliged to request a review. It's their call to do so.

Makes sense?

                   harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:23:06 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> When I first read the suggestion of "AD can handle it", my AD-load 
> alarms went off - we have problems with getting cycles to handle 
> independent submissions for the standards track that the author thinks 
> is ready today, and doing it earlier in the process wouldn't make it 
> easier (methinks).
> 
> NORMAL path for a non-WG submission for review is through a WG chair of 
> a relevant WG (it doesn't have to be a WG document), it's OK to say that 
> "if an AD feels the need to have a document reviewed, he/she can ask for 
> it".
> 
> - A WG chair can request review for a document he/she finds relevant to 
> the WG

I think so. Of course, there is nothing to stop an author requesting
reviews as a private matter, but having WG chairs and ADs as gatekeepers
for the icar process seems appropriate.

Of course, an author of a piece of cruft who can't get past any WG chair
or AD may then go and annoy the RFC Editor. Ultimately, the RFC Editor
relies on the same pool of potential reviewers as icar does, so
the Principle of Conservation of Review Work applies. Since that is a
law of Nature, we can't do much about it.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:41:06 -0700

Harald,

HTA> So we get a statement saying:
HTA> - A WG chair can request review for a document he/she finds relevant to the
HTA> WG
HTA> - An AD can request review of any document
HTA> - Neither one is obliged to request a review. It's their call to do so.

Yes, this sounds reasonable.

Here's why it isn't:

Reviews are part of the document development process. It is not an AD's
job to do the work of document development. That is the job of a working
group or an independent submitter.

An AD needs to facilitate the process of getting work done, but that is
different than getting it done themselves.  An example of facilitating
would be to make sure that the responsible person understands what will
help the process and how to get it done.

Before assigning a task to an AD, ask whether it is essential, or
whether the task can reasonably be done elsewhere.

d/