The "late surprise" problem

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 21. mars 2003 06:39 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> 
wrote:

> Actually this is a solution proposal, which Dave Crocker and I have
> been discussing the last couple of days. I think it has value, and
> it also illustrates what I think we have to do - find subsets of
> the total problem for which we can rapidly implement incremental
> solutions.
>
>    Brian

Brian,

this idea is fun!

two things that might improve the idea:

- colorize the SIRs. Routing clue has a green dot, internationalization 
clue has a blue dot, security clue has a black dot and so on - 5 or 6 
categories. Require that reviewers have at least 3 different clues between 
them.
One important property of review HAS to be that documents get reviews from 
someone who is NOT married to that particular religion.
Matching problem statement:
Lots of technical issues are only seen when looking at a spec from an angle 
different from that of the author and the WG chairs. Not enough people with 
different perspectives review documents early in the process.

- Make sloppy reviews have an effect on SIR status - if some reviewer 
(whether SIR or not) detects a problem that a SIR *should* have caught, 
transfer the dot to the guy who caught it.
Matching problem statement:
Even people who should have reviewed a document carefully sometimes don't 
do a good job, leaving problems for others to catch far too late in the 
process.

(Trying to adhere to a guideline that when you post something that's 
offtopic for the strict charter of the group, you include at least 
something that's meat for the current phase of the process....... the 
problem statements should be food for Elwyn, while the solutions should be 
kept in community memory for the next phase.....)

                   Harald