El 26/06/2006, a las 12:03, Dave Crocker escribió:
The "incentive" that something like SIRS offered was
classification as
a senior contributor. This was neither a small point nor a small
benefit (IMO).
what was the benefit of becoming a senior contributor?
...
how would this differ from the "technical advisor" title?
In my model, the advisor is an on-going mentor. They are an active
participant
in the working group.
Reviewers are not (necessarily) participants. There is an obvious --
and
probably quite appropriate -- view that a reviewer MUST NOT be a
participant,
lest their review be too distorted by having too much context.
isn't there already some "general area" reviewers that perform this
type of function? I thought there were....
In both cases, I would think that neither has any sort of veto.
Rather, they
must sway by convincing rather than dictating. This applies both to
the
decision-making by the wg and decision-making by the IESG (about the
wg output.)
what do you think about these more aggresive forms of looking for
feedback, like to one in Handley & Rescorla draft? maybe they could be
tested wihtout enforcing them, but leaving the results public (i.e. a
web page publishing the amount of credits that each participant has, so
that the general public can see who does reviews and who doesn't...)
(as oposed to enforcing it by not allowing submitting new draft if the
person does not have enough credits...)
Regards, marcelo
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf