Barry, Seems reasonable, although with two issues. One week might be better than two -- while I agree with the (total) life cycle comment, having things dragged out out when a WG thinks it is done and trying to move on to other work can be very frustrating and actually cause participants to tune out. There also appears to be a more serious problem that I'm not convinced adding time will solve: in this particular case, most of the Area Reviews seem to have been assigned shortly after the Last Call was announced or even earlier. If assignments were being quickly declined on the basis of "not enough time to review such a long document in two weeks" then the additional time might help some people decide they had time. Maybe. But, in this case, while the tracker shows that one assignment was declined within a few days, almost all the review assignments reached the end of the Last Call still in "assigned", with no sign of any action. If, after the current two weeks, work has still not started (or if the AD has to re-request the review), the length of time made available by adding two weeks is, depending on how you look at it, either two weeks to do the review (which you have argued is too short) or it is four weeks, instead of two, for nothing to happen. Maybe then we need another two or four weeks. Rinse and repeat. >From my point of view, the worst thing that can happen from a workflow standpoint is to have no idea when the Last Call will actually be over and the AD and WG/author review prior to IESG voting starts. Recent experiences certainly suggest that something needs fixing. However, I don't see simply adding time as addressing that problem unless things are done to tighten up the window between assignment and either declining or getting started. john --On Wednesday, October 16, 2024 08:47 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We should make it a general policy to add two weeks to the last call > period when a document is long, for some value of "long" (I might > say over 60 pages of substance (not counting change logs and > such)). I try to get to assigning ART-ART reviews a couple of > times a week, but that still means that, depending upon the timing, > with a two-week last call I might be giving a reviewer only a 7- or > 8-day deadline for a 100+-page document, and I always blanch when I > have to do that. While ADs regularly have to review long documents > with a week or two notice, I think it's unreasonable to expect > last-call reviews from directorates/review-teams on that notice for > long documents. > > We decided on the two-week last call period at a different time, > when the IETF was a different organization. Maybe we should > re-think it now, and keep in mind that an extra two weeks of > last-call review is *not* going to be the most significant delay in > a document's life cycle. > > Barry, ART-ART manager
