----- Original Message -----
From: "Jari Arkko" <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
To: "IETF list" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:33 PM
Subject: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process
I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant amount of
reviews and changes in the late stages of the IETF process. Next week
the IESG will be having a retreat in Dublin, Ireland. As we brought this
topic to our agenda, Pete and I wanted to raise the issue here and call
for feedback & ideas for improving the situation with all of you.
<tp>
Well, yes, any engineer knows that the later in the process changes are
made, the more costly they are, so the key is getting the early stages
right. But what are we doing wrong? We need feedback about what the
DISCUSSes are, what might we have done at eg WG Adoption of an I-D to
forestall the later DISCUSS.
Are some Areas or WG better than others? A statistical analysis would
help here, who to learn from, who not to; the graph suggests to me that
there is a steadily rising trend of DISCUSSes per document except when
there is a recession, when there is a step fall in them, but I do not
see any action I can take to make a difference from this observation.
Tom Petch
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/
Jari