Update how peer review assignments are made for joint submissions

[ShriyaRishab]

Changes made based on discussion in Training WG on 12.11.2025 as requested by Mangoboost

[github-actions]

MLCommons CLA bot All contributors have signed the MLCommons CLA ✍️ ✅

[ShriyaRishab]

@mlcommons/wg-inference - approved by training, is inference ok with this?

[hanyunfan]

@ShriyaRishab Let me check with MangoBoost to see if they can discuss this in the next WG meeting and take questions.

[hanyunfan]

Mangoboost will present this and we will discuss in next WG meeting (2/27)

[swasson488]

I agree with the intent of the proposed idea, but the current wording doesn't make sense in a context where the joint submitters don't also submit individually, which could happen. Also, a little more clarification might help.

I propose the following wording instead:

---

For peer review assignments, each company involved in a joint submission shall be treated as a separate submitting organization. For example, if Supermicro and MangBoost submit jointly, both Supermicro and Mangoboost will be treated as individual submitters. Each one will be assigned a peer organization's submission to review, and a peer will be assigned to review each organization's submissions. By this arrangement, a joint submission involving two submitting organizations will be reviewed by two peer organizations, not just one.

Also, a submitter involved in a joint submission shall not be assigned to review its partner submitter's work due to the obvious conflict of interest.

[ShriyaRishab]

@swasson488 your wording makes sense, updated it.

[swasson488]

@swasson488 your wording makes sense, updated it.

I made one edit to my suggestion in the comment above: "reviewered" -> "reviewed"

You may want to edit the new proposed text with that fix.

[hanyunfan]

@swasson488 Just checking on the next step. Do you think we need to discuss this next week in WG again, or can we approve it here now?

[swasson488]

@swasson488 Just checking on the next step. Do you think we need to discuss this next week in WG again, or can we approve it here now?

What do you think? There was little discussion outside of us in the WG meeting, so this seems uncontroversial. But I'm happy to discuss again if we want to be sure we have consensus. There is no big rush right now.

[hanyunfan]

n the WG meeting, so this seems uncontroversial. But I'm happy to discuss again if we want to be sure we have consensus. There is no big rush right

ok, let's quickly talk about it again in WG next week.