Subject: Re: [appsdir] ways forward with the tail-heavy aspects of the IETF process

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:50:21 -0700

Hi Claudio,
At 05:07 10-05-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
>2. Moving some directorate reviews earlier, to WG last call time as 
>opposed to IETF last call or IESG review. With the intent of not 
>increasing the number of reviews.

I suggest having AppsDir review drafts in "Publication Requested" state.

>  the IESG and affected parties on the details. One obvious question 
> is how various directorates feel about the changes, and how we 
> avoid increasing workload for them.

There may be a slight increase in the number of reviews.  It has 
occasionally been mentioned that some drafts in "Publication 
Requested" state are not ready for external review.  I suggest 
discussing the case with the Apps ADs if it arises.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:55:22 +0200 (CEST)

On Fri, 10 May 2013, SM wrote:

>> 2. Moving some directorate reviews earlier, to WG last call time as opposed 
>> to IETF last call or IESG review. With the intent of not increasing the 
>> number of reviews.
>

in WG Last Call there is still a quite high chance that the document will 
be revised by the WG itself, thus I agree with SM: at least "Publication 
Request" state.

>>  the IESG and affected parties on the details. One obvious question is how 
>> various directorates feel about the changes, and how we avoid increasing 
>> workload for them.
>
> There may be a slight increase in the number of reviews.  It has occasionally 
> been mentioned that some drafts in "Publication Requested" state are not 
> ready for external review.  I suggest discussing the case with the Apps ADs 
> if it arises.

We might introduce in the process the idea that when we detect a document 
in Publication Request state, we first confirm with the WG chair(s) that 
it is ready for review, and default for no answer (!?!!) is "go ahead".

> -sm 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:59:34 -0700

Hi Claudio,

I removed Jari to decrease his mail traffic.

At 12:55 10-05-2013, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>in WG Last Call there is still a quite high chance that the document 
>will be revised by the WG itself, thus I agree with SM: at least 
>"Publication Request" state.

You still have the "review requested" option during WG Last Call 
where the WG Chairs or AD can ask for an early review.  AD requests 
are given priority.  You can make the call for WG Chair requests; 
i.e. look at reviewer workload, the document looks ready for review, 
the WG Chair needs some help.

>We might introduce in the process the idea that when we detect a 
>document in Publication Request state, we first confirm with the WG 
>chair(s) that it is ready for review, and default for no answer 
>(!?!!) is "go ahead".

I read "Publication Request" state as "WG Chair thinks that the draft 
is ready for review".  You could send a message and follow up on it 
if the draft seems problematic [1].

Best regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00993.html