General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Experiences
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Ron Bonica) Yes
(Stewart Bryant) Yes
I would like to add my thanks to the GEN-ART team for their valuable contribution to the IETF.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
This document and the existence of the Gen-ART itself is clear proof that the General Area Review Team is nothing but a bunch of do-gooders with too much spare time on their hands. The output of the IETF would be considerably poorer without their input. Thank you. --- Nits: One of my favorite deviations is "PIN number". Could you repair "Gen-ART team" and "Gen-ART review team" Oh, and "General Area AD" is a bit dodgy. s/gen-art/Gen-ART/ throughout --- Section 3 The original and continuing goal of the Gen-ART team was, and is, to offload some of the burden from the General Area AD of IESG reviews. Tautology? "original and continuing" "was, and is," --- Section 3 The load for the bi-weekly IESG reviews is often quite large; occasionally there are more than 20 I-Ds scheduled for discussion in a single telechat. Thus, ADs also have less than a week's notice for many of the I-Ds on the telechat agenda. "Thus"? Apropos of what? --- Section 3 I found the tense somewhat fluid as the original aims and the current aims are mixed. I don't think any inaccuracy was introduced, but it is odd to read. --- Section 3 s/provides a reasonable basis/provide a reasonable basis/ --- Would it be helpful to include the current review email template? --- Section 5.4 1. Currently, a volunteer is assisting the secretary in caching the email reviews as they arrive. Makes it sound like the secretary is a paid staff member or a conscript --- I was rather disappointed by Section 6. I know I have Asperger's and love statistics, but given 20 I-Ds every two weeks for 7 years, this section is very short of information. What does "ready" mean? Even the authors sometimes use quote marks. --- I would have been interested to know the impression of Gen-ART reviews from the persepctive of the victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H authors of the drafts that are reviewed. --- Section 7.2 s/Area Directors'/Area Directors/
(David Harrington) Yes
(Russ Housley) Yes
(Pete Resnick) Yes
(Peter Saint-Andre) Yes
(Robert Sparks) Yes
Thanks for going through the effort to capture this history - especially the overview of comments received on the process. I expect this document to be very useful to future GenART and other review teams as well as the designers and maintainers of the tools that support them. A few small things to consider tweaking while editing for publication: 1) I think it's worth acknowledging that many ADs (not just the General Area Director) take the gen-art reviews into account when preparing their evaluation. 2) I suggest noting (prominently) that the detailed description of the mechanics involved in managing the reviews is a snapshot and that those mechanics may have changed (some minor details have already changed in the last few months, and a reader a few years from now should expect to find things have evolved even further). 3) This sentence in 4.1 reads awkwardly: This initially seemed to be an overloading of the process and presented some initial difficulties. What is it adding to the draft? I think the document would be just as effective if you deleted this sentence and the one that follows it.
(Sean Turner) Yes
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
Thank you for a very useful document. 1. It would be useful to mention in the Abstract / Introduction that the document reflects the experience accumulated in the period since GenART was started, but that the processes and mode of operation of the review team may change in time. 2. Section 4.3: Checking the IANA considerations is usually done by IANA. Running id-nits should be performed at submission and verified by the document shepherd. I am not sure that including these on the list of items marked 'Of special interest to the General area, because it does not fall under any other area' is time best spent by GenART 3. I would use 'keywords usage recommendations' rather than 'IETF formalities' 4. Section 4.5: s/MIBs/MIB documents/ 5. I find the level of detail of the secretary actions described in Section 5 too detailed in some places. Some of this information would rather belong to a GenART wiki, not in an RFC. On the other hand one important detail is missing. Who nominates the GenART secretary? Is he/she a volunteer or part of the IETF Secretariat? I think that I know the answers, but for the IETF at large it would be useful to mention these. 6. Something is broken in the sentence 'The secretary thinks that Gen-ART as an experiment that works well, but the secretary believes it is fragile. ' 7. Section 11 (IANA considerations) could be removed at document publication.