Subject: [Sip] Proposals for review process to conclude WGLCs

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:48 -0500

One of the questions we've struggled with is how to get sufficient  
review on a document under WGLC to make sure it's really done.

SIPPING is following a new procedure with designated reviewers, doing  
review by email, and sending stuff back to the. Apparently this  
suffers from the expected issues, with designated reviewers sometimes  
not quite meeting their review commitments.

Cisco made me take a peer-review refresher class the other day, so  
this started me thinking about some alternatives.

In the model taught in this class, each peer review  includes 1) a  
"moderator" or "reader" who frames the questions and keeps things on  
track, 2) a "recorder" who records conclusions and issues raised  
during the review, 3) the author(s), who neither presents no  
interprets the work, but does respond to specific questions about it,  
and 4) the reviewers, who hopefully have expertise and have committed  
time to the review.

I'd like to propose a couple of alternative models to what SPPING has  
been doing and seeing if either resonates with our group.

1) Real-time review sessions via conference call: When we get ready  
to do a final review, the chairs assemble a review team. Presumably,  
this review team is assembled by polling the list for volunteers, and  
by pushing extra hard for stakeholders and other people with specific  
expertise. The moderator builds up a checklist and set of basic  
questions to consider, and distributes it to the review team. At a  
tiem agreed to by enough of the participants, we have a conference  
call, not to exceed two hours, and work through the checklist in a  
moderated fashion. At the conclusion of that two hours, we either  
reach a positive decision, a negative decision (with list of issues  
and actions), or decide we need more review.

2) Moderated email-review, using the entire list as the "review  
team". In this model, the chairs pick a moderator and recorder for  
the review. The moderator sets up a checklist and sends it to the  
list, along with an announcement of the review. The moderator then  
goes through the checklist item-by-item on list, polling for  
comments. The recorder records any issues or conclusions. Each item  
might take two or three days for primary comments, but could be  
revisited during the review process if needed. The author could  
answer specific questions about the draft, but not paraphrase or  
interpret.  At the conclusion of the review, the moderator and  
reviewer would report to the chairs, who would decide whether we have  
issues, a conclusion, or need further review.

What do y'all think?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip