t.petch <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: "John Leslie" <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
t.petch <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: "John Leslie" <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
But _why_ is that something "holding up a working group"?
Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of
the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a
response to LC comments etc.
This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list!
You surprise me; I would say that many if not most of the IETF
WG lists I track run along those lines, with bursts of activity
starting about the time the cutoff for I-D submission is announced,
and finishing soon after the I-D submission window re-opens.
I won't dispute your data...
In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair, but more often
for the document 'editor'
Yes, I see this a lot. :^(
Sometimes it's worse: the document 'editor' doesn't meet the cutoff
and we wait for the next cutoff.
(and yes, I know that ADs are a precious and scarce resource whose
intervention should not be called on).
Nonetheless they _do_ tackle such situations -- often it's recorded
in the Narrative Minutes without naming names...
A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor.
Actually it's quite easy: if both WGCs agree, editors can be changed
for any reason at all, or even no reason in particular.
The problem is, the new editors usually suffer the same symptoms.
I strongly believe that the IETF process, of change control of a
WG I-D being vested in the WG, is absolutely right
+1
and it goes wrong when either the creator of the individual
submission goes on regarding it as their own property, making
changes without waiting for list consensus on changes,
Hmm... I see that a lot, too... It's not always bad, but it does
tend to slow the process.
or, more often, when they do not make changes, in a timely manner,
for which there is a consensus.
I don't see as much of that -- of course most WGCs don't call
consensus quickly enough, in which case it's not exactly the
document editor's fault.
IMHO, the happiest situations are where the document editor
responds to (almost) every suggestion, usually suggesting text for
how to clarify the point raised. Then the WGC calls consensus
when the comments die down.
Alas, few WGCs choose document editors that will do this...
If the chair could say, without offending anyone, please
incorporate these changes within nn days, with the option,
when that does not happen, to get someone else to make them
instead, then documents would come sooner and, IMO, be
of a higher quality.
There ain't no such thing as "without offending anyone".
I suspect, however, that WGCs _could_ say something like that
privately and solicit what amounts to a resignation of the
document editor in question.
The problem, IMHO, is that most WGCs have no idea how to
find someone to replace the document editor in question. My way
would be to announce the resignation; then say, "If nobody
volunteers to become document editor, we'll drop this from our
milestone list."
WGCs, IMHO, take too many responsibilities on themselves; and
burnout too often follows. :^(
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf