-----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.
