At 3:04 PM -0700 5/29/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Folks,
We have written a draft describing some guidelines for authors and
reviewers of internet drafts. We would really appreciate it if you can
spend some time to go over it and provide comments and/or suggestions
for improvement.
Thanks
Suresh, Pasi and Eric
Hi Suresh, Pasi, Eric,
I looked at it, and, while I laud any efforts to get folks to review
things effectively, I have to say that I found this to be a pretty drafty draft.
It does not reference the Tao, 2026, or any of the developed educational
materials;
its only listed reference, in fact, is 2119 and that does not seem to be
referenced
within the text. That means that this comes across as pretty context free.
It needs anchoring to the rest of our processes.
One of the things that I believe that anchoring should provide
is a pretty significant change of perspective. As this reads now,
it implies a lot of power in the hands of reviews to elicit (or even require)
change. It seems to want document authors to accede to requests for
tutorial material as a matter of course and to significant technical changes
with a modicum of fuss. That's not the right approach. The outcome of our
document development should not be a negotiation between the authors
and the assigned reviewers. It should be a conversation in the working group
among those who will actually develop the implementations, those who
will deploy it, and those who are affected by the system of which the
documented technology is a part.
Reviews that work to relate a particular document's technology
to the larger whole of which it is a part (asking: how does this impact
congestion control in the access network or core, use deployed security systems,
relate to the identifier mechanisms common to URIs, etc.) are very valuable.
But many reviews represent questions about decisions that come down to
design choices that working groups should have the power to make without
extensive second-guessing. Folks who want to have a say at the level can and
should do so with the simple method of joining the working group list and
commenting
as part of the general development. That's not "review" (of someone else's
work)
it is "participation" (in joint work), and it is fundamentally more valuable.
Without the context of how "participation" works, your documents description
of "review" comes off very badly indeed. I hope that future versions can
correct
that and place review within a broader, more productive context.
good luck,
Ted
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-krishnan-review-process-00.txt
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Reply-To: internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: i-d-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Guidelines to authors and reviewers regarding the
IETF review process
Author(s) : S. Krishnan, et al.
Filename : draft-krishnan-review-process-00.txt
Pages : 10
Date : 2008-05-28
This document describes the IETF review process and provides
guidelines to draft authors and reviewers on how to effectively
participate in it.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-krishnan-review-process-00.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf