Andrew Newton wrote:
> To Eric, Spencer, and all the other Gen-ART reviewers: Thank you.
>
> My experience with Gen-ART reviews has been very positive, and I
> appreciate your work and effort. I realize you weren't seeking public
> praise, but your volunteer contribution to the good of the IETF should
> be recognized.
>
I have to say that I really like these and the cross area reviews a lot. As
an author/editor having to digest zillions of posts on the lists mixed with
time and entropy, it gets really hard to look at the draft with the
critical eye
of somebody who might have to actually try to make sense of it. Not to
mention trying to determine what the draft says versus the lore that's
built up around it.
If I could make a suggestion, what might really be useful as well is
collecting
implementation notes, and especially what throws people off when coding
up the draft, or implements things in new and unintended ways. Unintended
can sometimes be very cool, but often it's that the draft isn't
sufficiently
precise.
Mike, who tries to do this but given a cookie cutter form
might do better
> On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Eric Gray wrote:
>
>> Minimally, as one of the people to whom that has happened, it would be
>> nice if at least an initial ("thanks for the review and comments")
>> mail
>> included the commenter, in every case. Even a "I wish you would stop
>> bothering us with all of these silly comments" would be a response.
>> Of course, I presonally would prefer that that sort of response was
>> not
>> addressed to the list, with or without me on it. :-)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf