Re: Fostering reviews (was Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?)

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

 




El 26/06/2006, a las 12:03, Dave Crocker escribió:



The "incentive" that something like SIRS offered was classification as
a senior contributor.  This was neither a small point nor a small
benefit (IMO).

what was the benefit of becoming a senior contributor?
...
how would this differ from the "technical advisor" title?

In my model, the advisor is an on-going mentor. They are an active participant
in the working group.

Reviewers are not (necessarily) participants. There is an obvious -- and probably quite appropriate -- view that a reviewer MUST NOT be a participant,
lest their review be too distorted by having too much context.


isn't there already some "general area" reviewers that perform this type of function? I thought there were....


In both cases, I would think that neither has any sort of veto. Rather, they must sway by convincing rather than dictating. This applies both to the decision-making by the wg and decision-making by the IESG (about the wg output.)


what do you think about these more aggresive forms of looking for feedback, like to one in Handley & Rescorla draft? maybe they could be tested wihtout enforcing them, but leaving the results public (i.e. a web page publishing the amount of credits that each participant has, so that the general public can see who does reviews and who doesn't...) (as oposed to enforcing it by not allowing submitting new draft if the person does not have enough credits...)

Regards, marcelo

d/

_______________________________________________

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



_______________________________________________

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]