Subject: RTG-Dir reviews

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:58:47 -0700

Guys-

 Here's the summary of what we chatted about at the rtg-dir bar meeting in SD.

 We need a better/easier process for document review. In particular, we need an
 agreed upon simple algo for assigning the reviewers to the documents, and a
 tool to track the assignments. We agreed that:

 1. A skills matrix for rtg-dir members would be maintained. Each person would
    have a list of protocols/areas of expertise he/she is particularly good at.

    I put together the first version of it. Please take a look and send me an
    e-mail with corrections or if I forgot to put you in the table.

    http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/rtg-dir/rtg-dir-skills.html

 2. The reviewer assignment algo would be as follows:

     1st reviewer is chosen based on the skill set. (if more than one match is
     found, take the person who hasn't reviewed any doc for longest time)

     2nd reviewer is assigned using round-robin (skipping the 1st reviewer,
     of course)

 3. Mark and Bill are going to help us with the tool, using RT.

 4. All rtg-dir members commit to pick up the assignments or inform that
    they are not able to do the review in time

    I will use a standard subject line to make it easier, e.g.:

     Subject: review assignment: draft-whoever-what-ever-365.txt: acee, dmm

 Anything else I forgot?

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:48:04 +0200

hi alex,

i think the below reproduce our rtg-dir mtg discussions

note: concerning the skipping rules (point 2) exercising the process has 
shown (see lsp-attributes document review) that there are additional 
exceptions e.g. co-author and chairmanship

thanks,
- dimitri.

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:16:31 -0600

>>     they are not able to do the review in time

Make sense.  One question..  How is "in time" conveyed to the
reviewer?

-danny

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:55:58 -0700

Monday, August 30, 2004, 1:16:31 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
...
> Make sense.  One question..  How is "in time" conveyed to the

How about the default review time of one week (if this is what you mean)?

Alex

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:05:15 -0700

Definitely it's helpful having a standard subject line, but then people 
do replies
to it, so I can imagine my not noticing for a few days that I've been 
assigned
something.

Could you make the subject line include the names of the assigned reviewers,
as in:

rtg-dir assignment: Radia, Danny, draft-mumble-mumble

Thanks,

Radia

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:23:03 -0700

Radia-

 The name were there, just at the end of the line :) In fact, I also thought
 they should be moved to the beginning when I saw the subject line truncated
 by the column width in my client. Will change.

 Another thing I could do is cc specific addresses of the assignees, if that
 will help. (I, for example, change the color of the messages where my address
 is included explicitly, so it draws my attention.)

Alex

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:34:06 -0700

I have a stupid email reading client and it wouldn't help to also CC me 
specifically.
But having my name "in lights" so to speak, near the beginning of the 
subject line,
would definitely catch my attention. I also don't think it's necessary 
to have
the name of the internet draft in the subject line, but it would be nice 
to have
the complete URL in the body of the message so it can just be clicked on.

So I'd vote for a subject line of:
rtg-dir review: name1, name2
and the convention being that the 1st name would be the subject expert and
the 2nd would be the round robin. And the name of the internet draft could
be at the end if people think it would be helpful.

Thanks,

Radia

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:59:30 -0600

> How about the default review time of one week (if this is what you 

Yep, that's what I meant.  One week does seem a
tad bit tight.  How about two weeks?  :-)

-danny

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:54:24 -0400

> tad bit tight.  How about two weeks?  :-)

I would tend to agree.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:22:30 -0700

>> tad bit tight.  How about two weeks?  :-)

As would I.

Chris.