Good point. I guess the obvious answers are "not enough
cycles" and, for newer authors, uncertainty about how to
get stuff done, but are there other less obvious answers?
(Input here might really help the IESG discussion btw since
in the nature of things, we're less likely to realise what
newer or less frequent participants find problematic.)
One possible step is to have WG Chairs be *managers*, like they are
supposed to be. That means the equivalent of having project plans. For
a given document, come up with a (reasonable, pragmatic, workable)
schedule for getting reviews, discussion, revision, repeat. And then
get committments from parties (authors, reviewers, etc.) to
deliver. And followup if they don't...
The current cycle too often seems to be more like "new version
posted". Wait if anyone reviews. Some reviews eventually, maybe. Oh,
IETF meeting coming, time for a revision. But with meeting
approaching, there are a zillion docs and cycles are limited. Rather
haphazard, with too many documents effectively only being revised once
per meeting cycle.
WGs make the most progress when authors respond quickly (within days)
to reviews, and do so on the list discussing possible text
revisions. You get much quicker and substantive discussion that way
and it becomes clear whether folk are converging.
Contrast that with "ask for reviews". Wait a month or two. New
document appears that says "this reflects comments we got, go
read". Delays between review/response tend to feed upon
themselves. Folk forget context, etc., making it more of an effort to
go back and remember their reviews, etc.
Too much of WG activites are "best effort" where volunteers (who are
busy and may not actually have the experience to do things optimally)
are expected magically to just know how things are supposed to work
make progress. Reality is a bit different.
Two concrete suggestions:
1) have WGs do the managing role more proactively
2) mentor authors and others a bit more to encourage them how best to
operate
Thomas