On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 04:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Would it be better if the process required an explicit request for
more time?
In the face of variable workload it makes no sense to expect
constant-time response from the IESG.
My understanding is that there is no load-levelling on the IESG agenda
-- documents ready for review go on the next agenda regardless of how
full it is.
A review body I'm involved with at Sun has a somewhat different approach
to reviewer time management.
Oversimplifying wildly: proposals are split into "fast-track" and
"full" review.
Fast-tracks are reviewed by email with a confirming step in our
meetings.
If the email discussion converges we typically spend about 15-30 seconds
of meeting time per fast-track. if the discusion doesn't converge, it
may get turned into a full review.
We sharply limit the amount of meeting time we spend discussing
fast-tracks, and also limit the number of full reviews per meeting.
Because the full reviews are scheduled at least a meeting or more in
advance into a specific time slot within the meeting, the folks making
the proposals can attend the review meeting/concall and can often
quickly resolve issues
which in IESG terms might wind up as a DISCUSS.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf