Regardless, we're already moving forward to make the identities public
(not sure if it's happening, or already happened).
Regardless, though, again, this is out of scope for this doc to address
in detail, IMO.
On 2/7/2011 1:24 PM, Chris Benson wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote (and others suggest):
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.
I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is
required for "interactive discussion". Or would anonymous
interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
Ietf mailing list