The need for smaller protocol specifications

C. M. Heard heard at
Thu Jun 12 16:57:42 CEST 2003

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Serious document reviews take time (a) for the review itself plus (b)
> > for the followup discussions (and in my experience b >> a). The only
> > reward for such a time investment is (perhaps) being mentioned in the
> > acknowledgements section.
> > 
> > To achieve more and better reviews, we simply have to make it more
> > attractive for people to spend their time on serious reviews.
> I agree.  My experience is that even if you very detailed reviews, people
> don't always acknowledge you.  Many don't even have the acknowledgements
> sections in the drafts.

Speaking for myself:

(a) I don't care one way or another whether I end up in the
acknowledgments section.  If, when I do a review, I am able to help
provide the polish that makes a specification with the potential to
be really good actually achive that potential, then I have more than
enough reward.  What I don't want is to work (as a reviewer or in
any other capacity) on stuff that has no chance whatsoever to be

(b) I've found that when I get the reward I want -- i.e. of being
able to contribute to a quality piece of work -- people are eager to
acknowledge my review efforts in the Acknowlegments section.

What would make it more sttractive to me to do reviews is greater
assurance that at then end of the day a quality spec will result
from the work.  That seems to happen when (and only when) the raw
material that goes in is basically good to start with.

YMMV, of course.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list