Subject: Re: Comments solicited:draft-zinin-early-review-00.txt

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:16:52 -0800

Sue-

 [cc'ing rtg-dir and rtg-chairs]

> Alex:

> Thanks for the draft. 

> Here's the problem I had when reviewing the draft for
> the rtr-direcorate:

> I was a late surprise to the routing group as you stated: 

> 	4. Late surprises

>           Earlier cross-functional review coordinated with later IESG
>           review should minimize the number of unexpected issues identi-
>           fied at the later stages of a document life cycle.

> The authors just wanted the draft out.  I wanted to comment on
> OPS requirements.   I don't chair right now in OPS (I did in the
> long past).  The authors were very nice about working with me
> but I felt it was a "late surprise" even as we started it now.

Right, late surprises are a problem today with any late-progress
review, be that the rtg-dir, AD, or IESG review. The draft tries
to solve this problem by giving the WG chairs a tool to invoke
the cross-functional review at any point in time. Until we have
this in place, we just have to bite the bullet and do the best
we can by proactively reading the drafts.

> My terminology was not "in-sync" with the authors and the
> chairs.  Cross-review means new "buzz words" to learn.  Warning folks
> about that would help.

Yes, I consider this part of the general catch-up process.

>      5.   Lack of cross-area review

>     The first steps are very painful.  So.. suddenly we are throwing
>     extra steps in.  Again.. its good -- but I need early input so
>     I am not in the work flow.

the idea is that by invoking the ART review process earlier, most of
the issues would be fleshed out and the AD/IESG review processes would
go smoother. This would shift most of the issue finding/resolving
activities to the WG part of the process where they are accepted more
readily than during the AD/IESG stage, where people just want their
stuff out.

>      6.   Lack of cross-functional expertise

> 	This is good so that people do not repeat old errors.  (A thing
> 	I see a lot now. ) 

> Sue

> PS - you can post to the rtr-directorate if you think it is worth while.

Thanks

Alex