Tom, About the interactions during the "AD Review" stage when it is public (my personal preferred way), it is *usually* between AD and authors[1]/shepherd/chairs as they are the most motivated people; but *formally* it is between the WG[2] and the AD, i.e., do not be afraid to chime in. Hope this helps, -éric [1] as the authors are assumed to act on the WG behalf. [2] of course, the WGLC consensus is binding. On 26/06/2023, 13:27, "ietf on behalf of tom petch" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On 22/06/2023 17:32, lgl island-resort.com wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: An aspect of process that this brings to mind is the etiquette to observe during an AD Review. Assuming that the review is public, on the WG list, and that the authors are responding in a timely manner and that the WG Chairs appear to be awake, then is it a good or a bad idea for other WG members to chip in with a comment, such as that is there because I queried..... and this is the clarification; or we discussed this in 2021 and I think that the I-D reflects the then consensus and so on. I have mostly assumed that the AD and authors are having a private conversation on a publis list and should be left in peace to resolve issues but I am sometimes tempted to make a 'helpful' intervention. Tom Petch > 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 >
