Subject: Re: Last Call:
Date: Monday 7th February 2011 21:24:52 UTC (over 5 years ago)
Hi folks, Sam Hartman wrote (and others suggest): >> >> I think that being able to discuss concerns with reviewers and being >> able to consider potential conflicts and other issues mean that an open >> dialogue with identified reviewers is an important part of our >> process. Anonymous contributions may have their place in the WG process, >> but I don't think they should have a place in expert review oor blocking >> objections to documents. So, as an individual I strongly support making >> expert reviewers identities public. >> I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is required for "interactive discussion". Or would anonymous interaction fail a Turing test of some kind? Chris Benson.