Hi! Responding to the point of WG closures -- the I2NSF and SecEvent WG participants deserve recognition for having finishing their planned deliverables and their WGs closing recently. 06-21-2023 -- I2NSF https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/5T-ANgPM_8xQj4_QM092_OdG6oA/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/0XFkwdVfrglBtSyZyAOWspQNLYY/ 06-27-2023 -- SecEvent https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/id-event/ASlT-O5wmkP-kF1MVbRVE04kltA/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/51MWV5qA-BiHTh5z8_33RyCCkU8/ Roman > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 8:22 PM > To: Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx>; tom petch > <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: AD review delays > > A simple observation - since I sent this a few days ago, 5 WGs have been > created and none closed. I expect the problem raised will only get worse. > > Regards > Brian > > On 22-Jun-23 11:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> 5: the time from consensus is declared until it is sent to the IESG? > > > > 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. > > > > Regards > > Brian > > > > On 22-Jun-23 01:26, Warren Kumari wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:33 AM, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >> > >> On 19/06/2023 17:47, Daniel Migault wrote: > >> > >> I tend to think it is not so much the number of days or months as long > as there is a common understanding of that delay. If one estimates X, the other > part estimates Y as long as X differs from Y it is likely to generate frustration - > chances for X to match Y are likely slim. On the other hand being simply > informed it is going to take Z, even Z being greater than X, this is likely to be > fine. > >> While the context of this thread is the delay from AD, this can be easily > generalized in my opinion to most of the IETF process. > >> > >> Generalising to everything a customer expects, a dictum of marketing is > that a customer is dissatisfied when reality does not match their expectations > so change their expectations. I do not know what drove the start of the thread > but dissatisfied customers could be one such in which case the aim of the > thread could be to reset expectations. > >> > >> My expectations are based on several decades of involvement in the > process with its ups and downs. The problem used to be the length of time > from IESG approval to the publication of the RFC and that has been fixed - I do > not know how but it has AFAICT. Perhaps that has now put a spotlight on > another part of the process. > >> > >> For me, though, it is the delays in the WG post adoption of an I-D that are > the greatest disappointment, and that could be a reflection on the time an AD > has to affect that. > >> > >> > >> > >> Erm, could you elaborate on the above? Are you meaning: > >> 1: the time after a WG formally adopts a document until the draft-ietf-wg- > foo-bar-00 comes out? > >> 2: the time from when a WG adopts a document until it enters WGLC? > >> 3: the time from when a WG adopts a document until it leaves WGLC? > >> 4: the time from entering WGLC until consensus is declared? > >> 5: the time from consensus is declared until it is sent to the IESG? > >> 6: something else? > >> 7: all of the above? > >> > >> Many of these times are (largely) outside the ADs control (other than > choosing more active chairs, cajoling the WG, stomping their feet, contributing > text, etc). > >> > >> W > >> > >> > >> Tom Petch > >> > >> Yours, > >> Daniel > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:01 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz= > 40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > wrote: > >> > >> I do not know where you get the month from. I was > >> thinking of teh > >> > >> freeze on I-D submission as being the start of the run up and perhaps > a fortnight after to get over jet lag, complete the commitments made during > the meeting, catch up on the day job and so on. > >> > >> My misreading of your comment. Thanks for the explanation. > >> > >>
