--On tirsdag, oktober 05, 2004 12:04:26 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
We have considered such a model; in fact the General Area Review Team (gen-ART) has proved to me that it is possible to get a great deal done on a volunteer basis - and even more if you get someone to act as "secretary" for it, such as Avri Doria is now doing (Thank you, team!) (see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/review-guidelines.html for details)
We could quibble about this, and, in particular, about whether it is/would be adequate for _standards_ processing as distinct from the things that fall within the General Area. If it were both adequate and helpful (at least without fine tuning), the fact that it is being done in this way only in the General Area would suggest that the other ADs like the workload, are incompetent, etc. I don't believe that, so I have to believe that the model you suggest won't generalize without tuning, and that brings me back to me assertion above.
actually the Gen-ART review is a late-review function, and applies to ALL documents, not just General area docs - and I intend to put it forward as a model for "late review" in the ICAR WG once that WG turns its attention to "late review".
As for generalizing it to other areas - the inspiration for it came from experience in the Ops and Routing area directorates, which again was based on some experience from the MIB doctors and the Security directorate. I'm more fond of writing than most, so the Gen-ART team is more documented than other processes. I assume we need to tune it for wider usage - I was mentioning it as an example of what we are able to do without formalized, paid-for support - which could be improved with such support.
I do think our thoughts run very much in parallel - I'll be interested to hear more of why you think the "scenario O" organizational format will make it hard to make those support functions work.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf