Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

> > > > > "Thomas" == Thomas Narten <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
    Thomas> The current cycle too often seems to be more like "new
    Thomas> version posted". Wait if anyone reviews. Some reviews
    Thomas> eventually, maybe. Oh, IETF meeting coming, time for a
    Thomas> revision. But with meeting approaching, there are a zillion
    Thomas> docs and cycles are limited.  Rather haphazard, with too
    Thomas> many documents effectively only being revised once per
    Thomas> meeting cycle.

I would like to suggest that the IESG Review be done in public on the WG
mailing list.    I've been a WG co-chair for just over a year now, and
I'm truly astounded by what happens behind the scenes.  

It's not the substance, it's the quantity, and the lack of WG view of
it.   I think that this substantially and quite negatively contributes
to the "fix it during IESG review", and therefore to the IESG workload.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on 
rails    [

pgpMeZcyQ2zbX.pgp
Description: PGP signature