Subject: MultiMON peer review - help please.

From: [email-masked] (John A. Stewart)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:06:27 -0400

Ladies and Gentlemen;

We have written a program called MultiMON, that seeks out and
identifies multicast traffic on a local network.

This program was written as part of a project run by the European
Commission. In order to affect closure on the work that we have
accomplished so far, I need to have a couple of "peers" fill out 
a word document, and return it.

Can someone, anyone, please fill out this sheet? We have enjoyed
writing the program (and a lot more is planned), but do not know
how best to get these forms filled out.

Please, if you can, get the word document from:

ftp://debra.dgbt.crc.ca/pub/mbone/multimon/peer_rev.doc

Thanks;

John Stewart.
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (John A. Stewart)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:59:13 -0400

I have had someone ask for the peer-review form in something that
is close to an open standard.

So, with great pleasure, I have ascii-fied it. And, because it is not
too long, I have included it here. There are few questions to fill
out, so I am making it *really* easy for anyone who has used the
MultiMON software to review it...

There are some simple questions after the boiler-plate at the top.

Thanks;

John Stewart
[email-masked]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCI
Multimedia European Research Conferencing Integration (RE 1007)

Peer Review Report

Acknowledgement

These notes are adapted from those produced by M. Pallares for the 
TEN-34 project.

Background

The consortium is contractually obliged to organise peer reviews 
for the MERCI deliverables. These reviews do not have to be formal 
meetings, but they do require that at least two individuals, who 
have not been close to the preparation of the deliverable, review 
the work and then produce a common report on their findings. A 
PEER REVIEW REPORT MUST ACCOMPANY EACH PROJECT DELIVERABLE (this 
is a contractual requirement) and this report should describe the 
peer review process, the peer reviewers, the comments made and the 
consortium response to the comments as they have been taken into 
account in the production of the final version of the deliverable. 
Peer reviews may be carried out electronically. 

Deliverables which must undergo Peer Review

Peer reviews will be organised for every project deliverable.  
MERCI has nine project deliverables - 0, 2, 3, 4, 10.1, 11.1, 11.4, 
12.2 and 13.2.  Others are either Internal or Submitted on request.

Peer Reviewers

Normally, peer reviewers will not be members of the consortium, 
though they could be.  It is important to ensure that the reviewers 
are representative of the target audience of the deliverable in 
question and that they can be seen to have a certain level of 
independence from the authors of the deliverable under review.  
In the case of MERCI it is probable that reviewers will be selected 
from among the MERCI User groups and associated projects which use 
the tools.  We will aim to have between two and five reviewers for 
each deliverable.

Organisation of Peer Reviews

Only Final Drafts of deliverables will be submitted for review. The 
final draft of a deliverable is in the form that will be submitted 
to the EC, bar any changes required as a result of the peer review.

The reviewers are expected to evaluate the deliverable in terms of 
content and presentation.  Criteria for evaluation are as follows:
Content - available technologies, best common practice, and validity 
of the proposal or solution presented, within the cost constraints imposed.
Presentation - clarity of explanations, consistency within itself, 
and ease of use by its intended audience.

The attached template will be used as the basis of the report.

Deliverable No:	        T.B.D

Deliverable Title:	MultiMON Multicast Monitor

Reviewer(s):	
(name & organisation)	

Deliverable Audience:   Multicast System Administrators

Nature of Deliverable:  Software.

A.	Content Evaluation:

Does the deliverable :
	present a technically sound solution?	Yes/No
	make use of the best available technologies?	Yes/No
	comply with best common practices?	Yes/No
	propose a cost effective solution?	Yes/No
	provide evidence of satisfactory 
	      implementation, if applicable?	Yes/No
	
Rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5:* 

Soundness of the knowledge base	     1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Quality of the technical approach    1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Breadth of coverage of topic	     1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Realistic time scales	             1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

B.	Presentation Evaluation:

Is the information presented clearly and concisely?	Yes/No

Is the presentation and terminology appropriate for the target audience?
	Yes/No
Are diagrams, tables, graphs used effectively to illustrate the points?	Yes/No

Rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5:*

Layout of the Deliverable	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Overall Presentation		1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
Level of detail provided	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

C.	Observations on Technical Content:

D.	Observations on Presentation:

E.	General Observations:

F.	Specific Recommendations:
* 1 = Very Bad  2 = Bad  3 = Acceptable  4 = Good  5 = Very Good