On 09-May-21 01:54, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Does the IESG plan to catch up on old reported errata that have never been processed? > > > There are three here for example: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6275, as much as 4 years > > old. There may be a lot more lurking. > > We need to fix the tooling to delegate to WG chairs to propose actions. Yes, except when the WG no longer exists. > Maybe we want ADs to confirm (like milestones), but I don't think we'll ever > deal with backlog until we can easily keep up with current efforts. I'm sure that's true too. Dare I suggest monthly nag messages, to the WG chairs if they exist, or to the responsible AD otherwise? Or a least, a page that lists all unprocessed errata and their age in days. At the moment I think we don't even know the size of the backlog. Brian
