RFC8289 and RFC8290 sat in queue for 2 years. To resolve that problem we (The authors) sent the responsible person: Cookies A wrist supporter Bungie Cords It worked. On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 1:03 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Stephen 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. > > > >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad > > Surely the first step is to talk to the AD. > Setting expectations (in both directions) and communicating changes is a good first step. > > Further, I think the page that Stewart cited is enough of an indication to the rest of the IESG of where the problem lie, so the IESG can easily tell where to offer help. > > I know that some ADs have a backlog and are working to clear it. These are not the size of queues that can be fixed instantly. > > However, when we talk about documents regularly being held up for more than 100 days without any progress, I think it is time to start fixing something. It isn't reasonable to add such a long wait into the cycle. > > Cheers, > Adrian > -- Podcast: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
