> > When there's no limit on the amount of work that can be imposed on IESG > > from external sources, treating such deadlines as optional (or at least > > relaxing them) is common sense. > > This is a very good example of the approach that many folks have taken, in > thinking about these problems. It is really pretty amazing, given the nature > and history of this community. It is not immodest to assert that we are a > community of relatively self-actualized participants, with a considerable > history of solving difficult protocol (process) problems. Yet in the matter > of solving serious deficiencies in our organizational processes, we shrug and > give up, rather than look for changes that solve the bottlenecks, improve > quality and retain the underlying culture of the original IETF process. Dave, that's a ridiculous statement. I've made several suggestions in numerous fora, including when I was on IESG, for how to minimize bottlenecks and improve quality. I was one of the first to suggest an I-D tracker. I may have been the first to draw up a state diagram for the IESG's document handling process and use that to look for ways to minimize states in which documents could get hung. Lots of improvements have been made due to suggestions from myself and lots of other people. For you to use my observation that unbounded delays are a natural result of an unbounded workload as evidence that "we shrug and give up, rather than look for changes" is both insulting and completely without merit. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf