--On Monday, June 23, 2008 07:41:27 PM -0700 Bernard Aboba
<bernard_aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Russ Housley said:
"I agree with this principle. In fact, I think that the IESG has taken
many steps over the last four or more years to reduce the
nearly-end-of-process surprises. Obviously, you do not think these
measures have been sufficient. One lesson from the many attempts to make
updates to RFC 2026 is that such policy documents needs to set
expectations without taking away flexibility and judgement. "
Can you elaborate on what steps the IESG has taken to reduce the
"nearly-end-of-process surprises" and why effect this has had, if any?
For example, have the delays resulting from IESG reviews actually
*decreased* as a result?
The research by Prof. Simcoe of the Rotman School is not encouraging:
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/strategy/research/working%20papers/Simcoe%2
0-%20Delays.pdf
The Simcoe dataset ends in approximately 2001.
This was 2 years before the I-D tracker got implemented. 'Nuff said.
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf