Thomas Narten wrote:
IMO, one of the biggest causes of problems (and most under-appreciated
process weakness) in the IETF (and any consensus based organization
for that matter) is poor handling of review comments.
Whereas all of my own experiences with groups having problematic handling of
reviews (except for a recent one where I happened to be the reviewer), is with
In all of the groups I've been involved with, reviewers were taken and pursued
seriously by the group.
Problems occurred when the reviewer was vague, misguided and/or intractable.
Diligent reviews are hugely helpful, especially so the earlier they occur.
But not all reviews (including AD Discuss vetoes, which frequently are part of
form of review) are offered so helpfully.
These repeated discussions about reviews are forceful in demanding
acknowledgment of the former, helpful type, while vigorously denying the
damaging reality of the latter and the need to deal with the pattern of
strategic problems they cause.
One of the reasons I'm such a fan of issue trackers is that it tends
to remove a lot of the above stuff by simply not allowing stuff to
fall through the cracks. Sure, trackers have overhead and are overkill
in some cases. But if one could somehow analyze the number of
documents that have been delayed for some time due to poor handling of
Mostly, we agree on these points. Handled properly, placing review items in an
issues list can be helpful to all parties, as long as each issue is clearly
stated and possible resolutions or constructive guidance are included.
One caveat: Sometimes it is the aggregate review that is most significant and
breaking it into constituent 'issues' loses the broader concerns.
IETF mailing list