--On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:04 +0000 "t.p."
<daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> wrote:
Time to publication of an RFC can be reduced by cutting out
the pauses, which could achieved by highlighting when they
occur.
This can be done by a tool which, for every active Working
Group, runs monthly and, for every draft adopted by the
Working Group, records whether or not there has been a change
and posts this list as an e-mail to the list of the Working
Group. Where a new version has been submitted to Tools, then
this new version is listed with the date of submission. Where
the status has changed, as recorded in the tracker (AD Review,
IETF LC, Publication Approved etc), then the new status is
listed with the date of change. Where nothing has changed,
then this is listed with the date of the last change.
...
Tom,
This is interesting but could also introduce a pathology in
which drafts are generated too frequently to encourage (or even
permit) healthy discussion. If one were going to do this, also
collecting some statistics on how much (or whether) a given
draft was being discussed on a WG mailing list might be very
important. New drafts and indications of motion like status
changes may be good clues but what really counts for measures of
progress and consensus is whether real discussion is going on.
john