Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:10:24 -0800

On 1/11/2012 11:59 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> But, if I may say so: actually I don't like the idea that you as the coordinator
> need to send a reminder if you don't get an ACK from the reviewer. That creates
> a lot of extra work on your end.
> The best default should be that the assigned review will be done until the
> deadline (of course as long as that deadline is something reasonable >72hours)
> unless the reviewer sends a deny (of course within lets say 72hours).

Good thing we are all in the communication protocol business and, therefore, all 
know the fundamental weakness in an open-loop control mechanisms.  Positive acks 
and retries are your friend.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:41:35 -0800

On 1/11/2012 6:08 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> On 12/01/12 00:30, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Maybe before I start, let me re-iterate, I have no strong preferences, only
> thought the sec-dir approach might be beneficial for the team. So on my account
> we can also keep things as they are.
> In the end it boils down to your work style: some prefer to read one email with
> a list which contains your name and assignment or scan a list of emails for some
> that may be relevant for you. Personally I prefer the first, but can equally see
> why others may prefer the latter.

The one-email approach imposes extra load on the administrator, to aggregate 
things.  It also means that the recipient does not have a transactional unit 
equal to a single review.  Whereas having notices be per-review still allows the 
recipient to do aggregation (automatically with a filter) into a separate folder.

At the meta-level, advocacy for an approach should consider downsides, or at 
least ask about them.  I believe the claimed downside for the one message per 
review model is that it has more pieces and is therefore harder to manage?  My 
suggestion about filtering into a separate folder is meant to attend to that.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker