>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> writes:
Joe> On 1/27/2011 12:52 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Joe> ...
>>> Small Issue #3: I object to anonymous review
>>>
>>> The current review is anonymous and this draft does not seem to
>>> change that. I don't like anonymous review - it's not how we do
>>> things at IETF and it encourages really bad behavior. I have
>>> several emails with an expert reviewer relayed via IANA where
>>> the conversation was going no where - once I knew the name of
>>> the reviewer, the whole conversation changed and stuff quickly
>>> came back to the realm of sane. I'm not willing to forward these
>>> emails to the list as that would just not be kind to anyone but
>>> I am happy to forward them to the IESG if they think looking at
>>> them is really critical.
>>
>> I can see your point, and I personally have no problem with
>> disclosing the reviewer identity. What do others think?
Joe> AFAICT, the experts team reports to IANA. We make
Joe> recommendations to them. They are the ones who have the
Joe> conversation with the applicant. They can take our advice or
Joe> not - that's their decision.
Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this style
of review just before I joined; this type of review was just about out
of the process leading to blocking objections when I joined as an AD.
I think that being able to discuss concerns with reviewers and being
able to consider potential conflicts and other issues mean that an open
dialogue with identified reviewers is an important part of our
process. Anonymous contributions may have their place in the WG process,
but I don't think they should have a place in expert review oor blocking
objections to documents. So, as an individual I strongly support making
expert reviewers identities public.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf