RE: What's been done [Re: Voting (again)]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> >  But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
> 
> Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and 
> timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to
> have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good
> Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to 
> get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed?

>From the ICAR review team page at
http://www.machshav.com/~icar/reviews/people/
one can observe that only two review requests were ever
submitted, and just one of these (a request submitted by me)
resulted in a review (by Bernard). The other requested
review, actually on Dave Crocker's list, is still pending.

So, it seems like WG chairs were not very interested in
getting help with early reviews, but I would not say this
is necessarily a failure without giving it more time. It
takes time to change mindsets, in the beginning you must
be regularly reminded about the availability of the
early cross-area review team. Not all documents would 
naturally benefit much from "WG external" early reviews,
and especially not every revision of a draft. The review I
got from Bernard was very useful, and I would be happy to
make use of this resource pool again, for some documents
at certain stages in the document development process.

Rgds,
/L-E, ROHC WG chair

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]