Skip to main content

Tracking Reviews of Documents


(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Joel Jaeggli)

No Record

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes (2015-09-02) Unknown
-- 3, bullet starting with "Reviewers must be able to indicate they are transitioning..."

Is this different than a "soft hiatus" followed by a "hard hiatus"?
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes () Unknown

Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes (2015-09-03) Unknown
This draft is really clear. I haven't been on a review team since 2010, but it sure looks good from the outside.

Just a couple of nits and minor thoughts ...

"all the of documents" is probably "all of the documents".

In this text,

   o  The tool must make it easy for the secretary to see the result of
      previous reviews from this team for a given document.  In Secdir,
      for example, if the request is for a revision that has only minor
      differences, and the previous review result was "Ready", a new
      assignment will not be made.
I would have parsed this more easily if the text had been "the secretary will not make a new assignment". Darned past tense.

In this text,

   o  A secretary must be able to configure the tool to remind them to
      followup when actions are due.  (For instance, a secretary could
      receive email when a review is about to become overdue).
I've never been a secretary, but is it obvious whether this would be per-secretary or per-document (possibly inherited from a per-secretary setting)? If this was a calendar, there would be a default alert interval, but I'd be able to say "remind me again on Tuesday". Is that relevant here?

Thank you for capturing Appendix B.  Suggested features deferred for future work. That stuff would likely be great, but not worth holding everything else up for.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes (2015-09-03) Unknown
The shepherd write-up says Brian C's comments have still
to be handled - is that still true? I guess they have been
handled, given the dates.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-08-31) Unknown
This is a nice document, and the expected enhancements will fill a needed gap.  

However, I really don’t see the need to publish a list of tool requirements as an RFC.  Not only will the requirements eventually be satisfied, but others will come up — for example the author/editor-focused requirements briefly mentioned in the appendix.  I think it would be better if this document was kept in the GEN Area wiki.

Having said that, I won’t stand in the way of publication.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-09-02) Unknown
Thank you for your work summarizing the tool requirements, it will be good to have reviewers tied to the tracker in the future.  It would be nice to see the connection from a draft to the review without the need for the secretariat to create that match.

I see the last bullet of section3 is out of scope for this effort and I have one other item that would be nice to have, but could also be a future request similar in nature.  This would be the ability for the AD to send a thank you note from the interface when they are notified that their review was used.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Record
No Record (2015-09-02) Unknown
I agree with Alvaro that there is no need to publish this fine document as an RFC. Let it exist as a living document somewhere.