On 19/06/2023 17:55, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Let’s put some numbers on this (units of days)
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
I am inclined to suggest that up to 16 is excellent, 32 is perfectly fine and 64 is just about OK. Would others agree? What alternative metrics would you propose.
For me, 64 is too long unless there are mitigating factors, such as lack
of a Shepherd write-up, failure to pass the various vetting tools and, I
might add, Normative dependency on the work of another Area. The
availability of the WG Chair to intervene and point out e.g. that the
issue was discussed and this reflects the consensus of the WG makes a
difference.
I think too that the point made by an AD that the work of the IESG has a
fortnightly cycle means that the difference between 16 and 32 - both ok
- could just be a reflection of where in the cycle the work falls.
Tom Petch
- Stewart
On 19 Jun 2023, at 16:52, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19/06/2023 16:13, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Stephen has provided a good summary. And the last paragraph of his reply is the recommended action.
I usually try to do my AD reviews by copying the WG in all my email exchanges with the authors. But I guess other ADs may not put the WG in copy, i.e., what appears on the surface as 'no move' could actually be moving ;-)
And to state the obvious, if a revised I-D is required (or under discussion) and if the revised I-D takes a long time to be submitted, then the I-D will stay longer in the 'AD review' state.
Very much so. I was assuming that the authors responded promptly, within 24 hours plus timezones. I was also assuming that the Shepherd had done their job, that the I-D has passed all the checks that the tools perform and that the AD review was considered finished when I see the announcement on Last Call list.
Tom Petch
I hope this shed some lights on the process.
-éric
On 19/06/2023, 17:00, "ietf on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 19/06/2023 12:16, Stewart Bryant wrote:
I am wondering what the consensus of the members of the IETF is on a
reasonable time for an AD to take to move a document from publication
requested to the next stage in the publication process?
I think the answer is "it depends." When I was on the IESG
it probably mostly depended on the length/complexity of a
document and what else was going on at the time, so not sure
it's possible to calculate to an expected duration for AD
review. I guess historical data might produce a bell curve
but not sure that data's easily assembled without a lot of
datatracker foo. (In case people don't know, a lot of the
current details for this are fairly transparent. [1])
I'd hope that someone unhappy with an AD's progress doing AD
evaluation would let the rest of the IESG know about that as
they're best placed to either pressure a slow AD or to offer
help to an overloaded AD.
Cheers,
S.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad>
.
