----- Original Message ----- From: "John Leslie" <john@xxxxxxx> To: "t.petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:06 PM > t.petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: "John Leslie" <john@xxxxxxx> > >>> --On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" > >>> <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> ... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done > >>>> on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can > >>>> take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's > >>>> holding up a working group. > >> > >> But _why_ is that something "holding up a working group"? > > > > Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of > > the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a > > response to LC comments etc. > > This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list! You surprise me; I would say that many if not most of the IETF WG lists I track run along those lines, with bursts of activity starting about the time the cutoff for I-D submission is announced, and finishing soon after the I-D submission window re-opens. In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair, but more often for the document 'editor' (and yes, I know that ADs are a precious and scarce resource whose intervention should not be called on). A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor. I strongly believe that the IETF process, of change control of a WG I-D being vested in the WG, is absolutely right and it goes wrong when either the creator of the individual submission goes on regarding it as their own property, making changes without waiting for list consensus on changes, or, more often, when they do not make changes, in a timely manner, for which there is a consensus. If the chair could say, without offending anyone, please incorporate these changes within nn days, with the option, when that does not happen, to get someone else to make them instead, then documents would come sooner and, IMO, be of a higher quality. Tom Petch > > > Harking back to Melinda's comment, this is where chairmanship comes > > in; the good chairs will chivy, poke and prod so that the hold-ups > > are minimised... > > The WGC cannot always manage this alone... > > > And sometimes WG chairs should prod ADs, sometimes vice versa. > > ADs don't have as much time available for this as you think... > > > What is difficult in our structure is for those without a formal role > > to insert a chivy without causing offence; > > A "chivy", almost by definition, is bound to cause offense. But > a posted question, expecting an answer from a WGC, can be effective. > > > this is where face-to-face, with its vastly richer communication > > channel, is superior. > > True, but three times a year isn't often enough. :^( > > -- > John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf