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

I also very much think that the mailing list review is helpful, just in 
the way Ted has described it below. There are often various issues that 
the submitters don't feel very sure about in the first place.

I also agree with Ted that we should be careful not to give the 
impression that every single comment on the mailing list has to lead to 
an edit. However, I think that the current language, i.e.

"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."

isn't too bad. After all, if we can't tell people to follow this 
document, then it wouldn't be worth working on it :-).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/06/07 17:12, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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 12:38:16 UTC