Hi Paul,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Agree. And this topic (the recipient list of the review) is something
>> I think hard about before I send out any review.
>
> That's good to hear, but I didn't see it reflected in the document;
> maybe your co-authors had a different slant. Regardless, my preference
> is to encourage group communication during reviews for anything other
> than editorial nits and "I was told to read this; I did; it was fine"
> reviews. Group communication, in both directions for a review, helps
> everyone. It also helps prevent a WG hearing that "I changed this thing
> we had all agreed to because I was told to by { a security person | an
> IAB member | an ex-AD | ... }". Those kinds of changes tend to make a
> document weaker if they aren't agreed to and possibly modified by the WG
> who worked on the document.
I will add the following text regarding this in a new section 4.2 before
the current section 4.2.
***************************START OF TEXT********************************
4.2 Recipients of the review
The list of recipients of the review is tricky to get right. The main
idea is to make sure all the relevant people receive the review. The
recipient list is determined mainly by the following factors
* The timeframe of the review (early vs. late)
* The contents of the review (editorial vs. technical)
Early reviews are usually performed by active participants of a working
group. The preferred destination for these reviews is the working group
mailing list since it can be reasonably assumed that the persons
interested in the document are subscribed to the mailing list. This
applies for both technical and editorial issues. Alternately editorial
issues can be resolved using a private mail to the author(s).
Late reviews are usually performed by persons who are not active
participants of the working group and who usually review the draft from
a different point of view than the working group. If the contents of the
review are mainly editorial in nature, the reviews can be sent just to
the authors, the working group chair(s), the document shepherd(s). If
the review is of a more technical nature it is considered polite to
include the working group mailing list and/or the IETF discussion list.
As it is not reasonable to assume that the reviewer will subscribe to
the working group mailing list just for discussing this issue, the
working group chair(s) need to make sure that this review will get past
any moderation controls imposed on non-subscribers by the working group
mailing list.
****************************END OF TEXT*********************************
Would this resolve your concern?
Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf