Subject: Recruitment of Experimental SIRs

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:12:47 -0700

Folks,

We'd like to run a proof-of-concept version of the Senior Internet
Reviewer (SIR) activity, prior to obtaining formal IETF "blessing" for
it.

The proposal is discussed in:

     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-solution-sirs-00.txt>

It recruits experienced IETF participants to provide additional and
iterative review to working group efforts.  The IETF community assigns
the status of SIR, but the working group recruits individual SIRs to do
reviews.

An experimental version of the service is at:

     <http://graybeards.net/sirs>

Anyone who is qualified to be a SIR, according to the objective
"bootstrapping" criteria in the proposal, should contact me to get
listed on the SIRS web page.

The objective are:

          *    all current IAB members

          *    all former IAB and IESG members, and former 
               WG Chairs, who the Secretariat can contact 
               and who are willing to serve

          *    all current MIB Doctors

          *    all members of existing IETF Directorates

          *    all authors of at least three RFCs, who the 
               Secretariat can contact and who are willing 
               to serve

Thanks.

d/

ps.  Suggestions for modifications to the proposal are still eagerly
sought.

--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:54:01 +1000

> Reviewer (SIR) activity,

I keep waiting for someone to suggest adding

 MAture Document-Aquisition Moderator - MADAM

but then I realize everyone else has more self control.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:46:01 +0200

> but then I realize everyone else has more self control.

That's the new title for those who shepherd mailing list discussions....

Mail Activity Director And Moderator.

Proving once again that I have no self-control :-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:05:33 -0400

--On Saturday, June 14, 2003 17:46 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> We'd like to run a proof-of-concept version of the Senior
>>> Internet Reviewer (SIR) activity,
>> 

To be supervised, presumably, by the

    Procedural Inspector and Manager of Processes
 
> Proving once again that I have no self-control :-)

Do we need this thread ?

(Which proves that I have no sense of humor as well as no
self-control. :-) )

         john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:47:33 -0400

>     Procedural Inspector and Manager of Processes

Yes, but watch out, some of these might really be agents for COPS.

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:23:40 -0400

It might be interesting to have a facility where comments can be 
attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla).

simon

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:00:21 +0300 (EEST)

> attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla).

I'm not sure what kind of comments you refer to?

"I think this and this is a bad idea, for these reasons, but naturally the 
document authors/editors won't add that in the next revision of the ID" ?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:17:05 +1000

> attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla).

they're called WG mailing lists, aren't they?

cheers,
gja

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:37:09 -0400

> document authors/editors won't add that in the next revision of the 

Create a document-based thread rather than a WG-based or 
mailing-list-based thread. Patches could also be posted and revision 
history (changes between revisions) would be easier to keep track of. 
People who have negative comments could post them, and they'd be part 
of the history record of the draft even if their comments are 
ignored/rejected.

simon