On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 04:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Would it be better if the process required an explicit request for > more time? In the face of variable workload it makes no sense to expect constant-time response from the IESG. My understanding is that there is no load-levelling on the IESG agenda -- documents ready for review go on the next agenda regardless of how full it is. A review body I'm involved with at Sun has a somewhat different approach to reviewer time management. Oversimplifying wildly: proposals are split into "fast-track" and "full" review. Fast-tracks are reviewed by email with a confirming step in our meetings. If the email discussion converges we typically spend about 15-30 seconds of meeting time per fast-track. if the discusion doesn't converge, it may get turned into a full review. We sharply limit the amount of meeting time we spend discussing fast-tracks, and also limit the number of full reviews per meeting. Because the full reviews are scheduled at least a meeting or more in advance into a specific time slot within the meeting, the folks making the proposals can attend the review meeting/concall and can often quickly resolve issues which in IESG terms might wind up as a DISCUSS. - Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf