Ted:
> >I think you completely misunderstand my point. A reviewer can make a
> >comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree. This is
> >important for an AD to see. The AD now needs to figure out whether
> >the reviewer is in the rough part of the rough consensus or whether
> >the reviewer is representative of a larger part of the community. If
> >the review is ignored, then the AD get no indication that further
> >investigation is needed.
>
><snip>
> >
> >True. As you have heard from Tim and me, these reviews are very
> >helpful to the ADs, and I am saying that the discussion that follows
> >such a review is helpful in judging consensus.
> >
> >>Creating an environment where all these additional reviews and
> >>reviewers essentially block document progress is not the right direction.
> >
> >I agree, and requiring a response to the review is substantially
> >different than blocking a document. The alternative is silence, and
> >silence cannot aid in judging consensus.
> >
>
>I think you and Tim (and potentially other ADs in areas that have review
>teams) are missing an opportunity here. Over time, these review teams
>have been grown to the point where they do their reviews at Last Call
>or before. That's a very good thing. One of the reasons it *could*
>be a good thing
>is to foster a culture of general cross area review. If the Last
>Call reviews by
>SAAG, Transport, Applications, and so on were seen as positive
>activities of the
>areas, they could help encourage even earlier cross area review, either by
>those teams or the areas as a whole. Since that is one of the main selling
>points of the IETF, that would be, let us say, nice.
>
>To make that happen, though, you'd have to see them as your areas feeding
>Last Call comments into the general Last Call commentary stream. Those
>are resolved by the shepherds and the area advisor, not by the area directors
>for the areas. The way you're doing it now treats these reviews differently,
>as advice to the area director of a relevant area, to be resolved differently.
>In other words, it continues to make the individual IESG folks the
>focus of the
>activity. That limits the benefits this review can provide, pretty much, to
>the benefit the IESG can absorb. If the IESG isn't doing the early review,
>the review teams don't either.
>
>To put this another way, having vibrant, active review teams for an area
>could be an area of leadership. Right now, it looks like they are being used
>soley as time-management aids for the ADs instead. That's a real opportunity
>missed.
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
This tells the recipients that the review fits exactly the role you
describe above.
Russ
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf