Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingt
he Right Things?)
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
bwijnen at lucent.com
Mon Jun 9 14:35:06 CEST 2003
> But that's ok. Since you believe area directors are not
> inventing their quality requirements, please direct folks
> to the statements of community-based quality that area
> directors are working from.
For MIB Doctor reviews, which happen to satisfy my "quality"
expectations, we have a document for MIB review:
Thanks to Mike Heard as a hard-working editor of that document.
We have created it it with the team of MIB Doctors trying to come
to consensus what we find important for quality and consistency.
We also alerted all WG chairs and a few mailing lists about it and
asked for input and comments. We have received a little bit but not
much. We of course expect WGs to check their documents against
those guidelines before submitting for MIB Doctor review.
What we continue to receive, is MIB documents for review that
clearly have not been checked at ALL (not a single iota) to
this "guidelines" document.
> It really would make things quite a bit easier.
So... we hoped it would make things easier and that WGs,
members, editors, authors, chairs etc would do a simple check
before submitting the doc... but very few seem to take the
time up till now.
What a pitty.
Actually it would be best if MIB documentes where checked at revision
zero against the mib review guidelines.
I believe that the Security Area has similar docs out that
describe what needs to be considered from a security point of view.
Maybe we need more. Maybe what we have is not good enuf..
Input is welcome!
In terms of: "do good documents get rewarded and bad docs pubished"
If one of the MIB doctors who is doing a review tells me: this doc is
in good shape and meets all guidelines that we documented... I can
tell you that the doc goes much faster than when the MIB doctor
tells me and the authors/wg that they did'nt even do a clean compile
to check the syntax. It <beep>s me off and I can't get eager to
go through many rounds of "helping" to improve the doc. Maybe that is
bad behaviour on my side... but is a SYNTAX check not the least we
may ask for before a doc gets sunmitted?
More information about the Problem-statement