Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
are the better for it.

What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
interpreted.  This part of the instructions:

"Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
given in this document."

makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.

Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
decision."  Would that work?

Ted

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 AM, iri issue tracker
<trac+iri@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>
>
> Comment (by masinter@…):
>
>  I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>  the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>  This simplifies the process.
>
>  DELETE
>
>    3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
>        document (with specific reference to the section with the
>        template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
>        review.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
>        lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
>        syntactical issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for
>        a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
>        protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
>        Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
>    4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>        registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
>        given in this document.
>
>  and
>
>  OLD
>    5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
>        to document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
>        whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
>
>
>  NEW
>
>    3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
>       to the document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
>       the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
>  ...).
>
> --
> --------------------------------+------------------
>  Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
>     Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
> Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
>  Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
>  Keywords:                      |
> --------------------------------+------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
> iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 08:13:10 UTC