I'm guessing that this sort of situation arises when you have less familiarity with the work or the document is particularly troublesome. I wonder if there's a way to identify this in advance and treat it differently. Lumping the well prepared and easy to process documents into the same bin as the ill prepared or difficult to process documents could be hiding some important factors that might benefit from closer analysis.
Steve
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Steve" == Steve Crocker <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Steve> Sam, Thanks. The IETF last call and scheduling of Steve> telechats are visible and understandable. What's the Steve> figure for time for AD review?
I'm not the best person to ask; my sample set is small.
It depends a lot on a document. I can often do a document in in two hours if it is reasonably short and I understand the technology and the document quality is good. I have one document languishing somewhat in my queue because I need to block out an entire day for it and finding a full day to work on one document is hard.
Keep in mind that AD review can easily have round trips with the authors.
Also, as you are well aware, finding the time among all the other things is difficult.
I would say that accomplishing AD reviews in a week of real time would be doing good; two weeks would be fine. Some documents will take longer.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf