How to organize reviews

[egekorkan]

In the following places we mention the review process:

• https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-registry/#own-rev
• https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-registry/#req-traninit
• https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-registry/#life-subm

However, we do not explain how we kickstart the review process. How do we choose and document who we chose etc. It would be in the issue thread, probably.

[egekorkan]

TD Call:

• We need to indicate that the submitter cannot be the reviewer. Can the submitter propose a reviewer?
  • No the submitter and reviewer(s) must be separate.
• How does custodian choose the reviewer or assess the expertise?
  • TBD
• We need the following templates:
  • Reply to the submission, indicating the reviewers (more?)
  • Reviewer template, i.e. what the reviewer fills.: Automatic checks on the resources (see Adding design guidelines for resources #42 ) and manual checks. Probably best to turn https://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-registry/#submission-requirements into a markdown
  • Decision notification (result of reviews)
  • We need these for the initial submission and the transition to the current, which are quite different.
• How do we prioritize reviews? Is it first come first serve?
  • Initial idea: don't create a process, if there is enough interest in a protocol, it will be easier to find reviewers.
• Do we give review time guarantees?
  • Initial idea: We should not. Community-driven and risky to give guarantees in general.
• Do we give time guarantees for merging after the review process is complete?
  • Initial idea: same as did methods -> minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 30 days