Thomas Narten wrote: > IMO, one of the biggest causes of problems (and most under-appreciated > process weakness) in the IETF (and any consensus based organization > for that matter) is poor handling of review comments.
Whereas all of my own experiences with groups having problematic handling of reviews (except for a recent one where I happened to be the reviewer), is with the reviewer. In all of the groups I've been involved with, reviewers were taken and pursued seriously by the group. Problems occurred when the reviewer was vague, misguided and/or intractable. Diligent reviews are hugely helpful, especially so the earlier they occur. But not all reviews (including AD Discuss vetoes, which frequently are part of a form of review) are offered so helpfully. These repeated discussions about reviews are forceful in demanding acknowledgment of the former, helpful type, while vigorously denying the damaging reality of the latter and the need to deal with the pattern of strategic problems they cause. > One of the reasons I'm such a fan of issue trackers is that it tends > to remove a lot of the above stuff by simply not allowing stuff to > fall through the cracks. Sure, trackers have overhead and are overkill > in some cases. But if one could somehow analyze the number of > documents that have been delayed for some time due to poor handling of > review comments... Mostly, we agree on these points. Handled properly, placing review items in an issues list can be helpful to all parties, as long as each issue is clearly stated and possible resolutions or constructive guidance are included. One caveat: Sometimes it is the aggregate review that is most significant and breaking it into constituent 'issues' loses the broader concerns. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
