On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 04:14:51PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Now, I don't know how to incentivize the wider community to provide > >> > interim reviews. Reviewing I-Ds is really time-consuming and energy > >> > sapping for me personally -- the biggest problem is making the time and > >> > finding a way to get it funded when it's a lot of time. > >> > >> This is why I wanted to have the list of structured reviews encoded in the > >> XML so that the datatracker and rfc-editor pages could at least provide a > >> kudos here. > > > Yes, certainly better tooling for review formalism will help. > > > So if I am asked to review draft-ietf-foowg-xyz-11 and I can see that > > there was an interim review at -07, I can start by reading that review, > > then reading -11, then examining the differences between -07 and -11. > > Gosh, I hadn't thought about recording a link to the review. > I just wanted to give kudos. Recording a link to the review is a great idea, > and deals with some of the question of who gets a acknowledgement and who > doesn't. The datatracker has been slowly getting better about these things; e.g., if I look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis/ there's a "reviews" section with links to the requested directorate reviews, which in turn have links to the email threads. But of course this does not integrate to non-directorate reviews (yet?), and requires the reviewer (or directorate secretary) to make the review in the datatracker. -Ben
