On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, John C Klensin wrote:
(2) Several comments, during and after the discussion and most
precisely framed by Spencer Dawkins, that I may have made an
incorrect assumption about transition. The text more or less
assumes that the review panel membership would be new
and the IESG membership would be left in place. Perhaps the
current IESG membership are most skilled in document review
rather than the sort of WG leadership and steering functions
that I had in mind -- the functions I think we had in the
early 1990s. If that were the case, then we should resolve the
detail of the IESG being larger than the review panel, shift
the current IESG members onto the review panel, and repopulate
the steering/coordination/management entity (probably calling it something
other than "IESG").
Personally, I don't think changing the proposal in this aspect is
worth the effort. Changing people around seems more trouble than
electing new ones. The existing IESG people, if they felt the review
panel is more suited for them, could very well apply to the review
panel, and if selected, the nomcom would pick the IESG replacement.
In a year or two, everything would be settled in any case. The people
will find the roles they're interested in.
(But this wasn't my maint point in replying..)
(3) A comment from an IESG member that the notion would probably add work,
since the document provides for documents rejected by the review panel to
cycle back through the IESG. To me, this is one of the "sample detail" issues
identified above. If the IESG wants to be explicitly in that loop, and the
community wants that, then "back to the IESG as the submitting body" is the
right model. I had anticipated their involvement at that point as
lightweight, with the AD reviewing the comments and passing them on to the
WG, but not assuming today's role of negotiator with the WG (or between the
WG and the review panel). I think that negotiator role, after a document
goes out for IETF Last Call, is the source of several of our problems and
needs to be eliminated.
For those who are reading this without having read the document, please note
that rejection of a document by the review panel is intended to be A Big
Deal. The document suggests a process that would focus on getting
good-quality, pre-reviewed, documents to the review panel --with shared
responsibility between the WG and the IESG's steering/managing function for
being sure that happens-- with the review panel only organizing a final
check.
I'm troubled with the assumption that the review panel rejection is A
Big Deal. This has unstated assumptions on what kind of people
you'd expect to be on the review panel and/or what kind of review is
expected.
As an occasional reviewer myself, a few observations:
* All the indepth reviews I have done have resulted in issues,
* If I haven't found a problem or a request for clarification, I
haven't paid sufficient attention to the review, and
* IMHO there is nothing more frustrating than finding problems (not
maybe critical ones) which don't get fixed for one reason or
another (e.g., because it isn't worth the time to respin the
document, giving that comment would be a "big deal", ...).
Scientific reviews certainly have "accept", "reject", or "accept with
modifications".
Maybe forcing "yes, business as usual" or "no, A Big Deal" is
intentional -- to encouraging the reviewers to perform less in-depth
reviews (with more responsibility on the chairs and the IESG) so that
they'd only complain of the most horrid problems, to lessen the load,
to encourage earlier participation, make sure the majority of the docs
go through without issues, etc.
As how to address this, a few observations:
* the review panel's review function has to be roughly equivalent to
what review the IESG is doing today, so that the IESG can
"give up" most of its review with good confidence.
* to achieve this, I think we need "accept", "reject",
"tentative accept" resolutions where in all cases the panel could
include feedback on things that were noted.
* whether or not the review panel (or the reviewers) check the
revised documents after "tentative accept", whether the checking
responsibility is with the AD(s), or something else is
an interesting detail point which probably isn't relevant at this
point.
Hope this helps in getting a better understanding on what the role of
the panel could be.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf