Cross-Area Review (was: Fwd: RE: A follow up question onietf@ietf.org)

[Steve Silverman]

I think that the number of WGs, the number of IDs, are overwhelming.
At the last meeting, whenever a WG was asked how many have read the
ID, the
number was quite low (sometimes 4 or 6 out of several hundred in the
room).
The IETF has a principle (or a working model) that the topic is not
explained
but we assume that everyone has already read the draft.
As smart as many of IETFers are, half dozen reviewers can't do as good
a job of review as 30 or 40 people
as they go thru the process of understanding a proposal.

The SIR proposal (selected senior reviewers) would help prevent some
problems
but I think some gating mechanism is needed so that more attention is
focused on
a smaller number of topics.  Now, the transition to a WG item of work
is fairly casual.
Perhaps a more formal gating mechanism for this transition would help.
I have seen
some fairly extensive areas of work moved to WG status with very few
people having read a draft
and nobody wanting to block an area of work.

One addition to the SIR proposal that I would propose is various areas
need to be represented among the reviewers (e.g., a security expert
should be included).

Steve Silverman



> -----Original Message-----
> From: problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:25 AM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Cross-Area Review (was: Fwd: RE: A follow up question
> onietf at ietf.org)
>
>
> One of the questions here is why the mechanisms that we have today
> don't always work.
>
> We have open review of WG charters, where cross-area issues
> really ought to be identifiable.
>
> We have the IAB, which keeps an eye on all BOFs and is supposed to
> have a cross-area mandate in general.
>
> We have IAB workshops, which are definitely supposed to take a wide
> view.
>
> Are we lacking something a bit later in the process, after
> a WG effort
> has been started but before its results have crystallized?
>
>    Brian
>
>