Hiya, On 31/07/18 18:03, Charlie Perkins wrote: > Perhaps the pool of readers should be identified before the WG adopts > the document I'd say that's worth a try, and could be a relatively easy tracker improvement if it worked. It'd need the WG chairs to know who is and isn't likely to do a good and relatively objective job, but that'd be ok in many cases I reckon. On 31/07/18 18:14, Ted Lemon wrote: > One of the things that's worked quite well in several working groups > I participate in is (and I know this sounds radical) a culture of > insisting on running code before publication. I'm also keen on that, where it applies. I guess it could maybe be handled similarly to the above - a WG could adopt a document contingent on it having running code before publication will be requested. A pointer to the list archive where the relevant description of what's expected in terms of running code could be added at adoption-time just like adding the name of someone who's promised a thorough review. I'm not sure either thing would cut down on the time requirement for ADs that much, but both seem like good things to try out. Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
