[rfc-i] Overview document available
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Nov 6 20:17:15 PDT 2010
On 2010-11-07 16:04, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 11/6/2010 6:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2010-11-07 03:11, SM wrote:
>>> "The [RFC Editor] stream should be re-instituted to distinguish RFC
>>> policy, structure, and process documents from other RFCs."
>>> Is there a reason why this cannot be done through the Independent
>>> Submissions Stream?
>> Because independent submissions are supposed to be peer-reviewed
>> technical submissions...
> Peer review is misleading, IMO.
> The IS review process is more of a sanity and end-run check, rather than
> the kind of review that happens when a paper is submitted for a journal
> or conference. The IS review process requires only one such review
> (presumably for that reason), rather than the 2-3 typically required as
> a minimum for most "peer review" publications.
That really isn't accurate. Firstly, the reviews are not just a sanity
check. I can testify to that as both a reviewer and as a reviewee. They are
real reviews, performed by a peer, but not single-blinded like most reviews
for conferences and journals. And the ISE does sometimes request more than
one review, although it's true that is an exception.
This is a lot more than a threshold check.
The end-run review is done by the IESG, but only after the regular peer
review done for the ISE has led to a decision to publish.
> Let's please not call this "peer review". It's a threshold check.
More information about the rfc-interest