Re: AD review delays

["lgl island-resort.com" <lgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 21, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Considering that our process makes this a one-person bottleneck for
a person who is supposedly a part-time volunteer with a day job
too, and considering that we have all (I hope) studied queueing theory
for single-server systems, I'm very unsympathetic to complaints
about this compared to all the other steps in the process.

If you want to reduce the mean response time of this queue, the best
way would be to send it less work. As long as the IETF has ~130 active
working groups and a manageable size of IESG, i.e. about 10 WGs per AD,
this isn't going to happen.

My understanding is that document adoption by a WG is the entry point, so putting some limit there might be the useful. It would also help WG chairs perform better and might result in better document review during last calls and such because there are fewer to review.

Queue management could measure the number of documents in all phases after adoption, could size documents as small, medium and large, could assume some percentage will wash out and such. This could give WG chairs back pressure to not adopt documents or perhaps queue adoption of documents.

LL