The "late surprise" problem

Scott W Brim swb at employees.org
Sun Mar 23 11:45:02 CET 2003


On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 09:14:38PM -0800, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
> And here is the part that appeals to me most: An intelligent working
> group will not simply come to these reviewers, hat in hat, pleading
> for a review at the end of the specification effort.
> 
> They will, instead, involve these SIRs in the development process.
> That will get better contributions and MORE readings.

How many competent people are there who are not already as involved as
they can be in the working groups that are important to them?  So first,
people are already involved in the development process for groups that
are important to them, so along that axis this proposal changes nothing.
Second, they don't have a lot of spare time, so I don't see how you're
going to get them involved in the development process of other WGs.  

We're going to need special status, to persuade their employers to give
them more time.  You can do that if it's something "official" in the
eyes of the IETF.  That sounds to me like an enhancement to
directorates.  And again, I don't think the IESG has too much power.

> JH> Second, reviews turn easily into a weapon against a certain approach, school
> JH> of thought or person. Not even blind reviews are able to prevent this.
> 
> That is why it is essential that the working group have control over
> selection of the particular reviewers.

It works the other way even more.  A WG [chair] will naturally select
reviewers with the same outlook, which will prejudice the design
decisions.  ADs are selected for their depth and breadth, so wouldn't
you trust them to select more general reviewers in general?

..swb


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list