On 7/31/2018 10:03 AM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
How could the IETF find more assurance that a WG document would get sufficient review?
I think the WG chair and AD must be responsible to appoint at least 3 reviewers per wg-draft. Any WG needs who can find errors per work and then comment.
IETF Efficiency: is about knowing how to spend less time/money/effort per WG or per ID, while maintaining the respected quality.
Our IETF managers (ADs and WG chairs) need to know how to make the best IETF efficiency effort. They are *responsible* to know how to spend OUR efforts and Our money and Our time per IETF Area/WG/adopted-draft. Then they Guide us to such efficiency.
Perhaps the pool of readers should be identified before the WG adopts the document. If that happened, then when the document is ready for wider review, the reviewers are known and have already expressed a willingness to review the document.
If that solves the problem ok. However, I think we need to have TWO participants that make up the fair discussion, one is the author and the other is the arguer per adopted work.
In the IEEE, the reviewers are partially motivated to retain their voting rights, but in the IETF we probably wouldn't want to institute such a system as that. Nevertheless, having a solid constituency for document review and comment resolution in the IETF would help a lot.
If the AD knows that 5 people reviewed other than authors reviewed the draft it is better than only 2, also it will help to know that the draft was argued enough in meetings and on the list.
My hope would be that, with a better process for document review and comment resolution, the ADs would find their job to be a lot easier.
IMHO we need a process that finds the positive and negative of the adopted-draft. Engineers know that there is no technology without negative sides or disadvantages, so most engineers may hide the negatives. Therefore just reviewing document may not solve the problem, we may need for each adopted draft, the author showing the change-advantages and another participant finding the change-disadvantages, then it will be easy for the WG/AD to makeup best decision.
Lastly, I know that some working groups already try to do some of these things. I suggest that we will know when the review process has been sufficiently improved, when a document almost never goes through Last Call without sufficient comment.
I think also that the review process will improve when the WG chair will manage between adopted work and the WG review capabilities. We may find a WG have many interested/adopted drafts, and many focused on authoring and few/none reviewing/discussing and arguing (i.e many making values and few finding errors).
AB
