t.petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "John Leslie" <john@xxxxxxx> >> t.petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: "John Leslie" <john@xxxxxxx> >>> >>>> 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. I won't dispute your data... > In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair, but more often > for the document 'editor' Yes, I see this a lot. :^( Sometimes it's worse: the document 'editor' doesn't meet the cutoff and we wait for the next cutoff. > (and yes, I know that ADs are a precious and scarce resource whose > intervention should not be called on). Nonetheless they _do_ tackle such situations -- often it's recorded in the Narrative Minutes without naming names... > A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor. Actually it's quite easy: if both WGCs agree, editors can be changed for any reason at all, or even no reason in particular. The problem is, the new editors usually suffer the same symptoms. > I strongly believe that the IETF process, of change control of a > WG I-D being vested in the WG, is absolutely right +1 > 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, Hmm... I see that a lot, too... It's not always bad, but it does tend to slow the process. > or, more often, when they do not make changes, in a timely manner, > for which there is a consensus. I don't see as much of that -- of course most WGCs don't call consensus quickly enough, in which case it's not exactly the document editor's fault. IMHO, the happiest situations are where the document editor responds to (almost) every suggestion, usually suggesting text for how to clarify the point raised. Then the WGC calls consensus when the comments die down. Alas, few WGCs choose document editors that will do this... > 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. There ain't no such thing as "without offending anyone". I suspect, however, that WGCs _could_ say something like that privately and solicit what amounts to a resignation of the document editor in question. The problem, IMHO, is that most WGCs have no idea how to find someone to replace the document editor in question. My way would be to announce the resignation; then say, "If nobody volunteers to become document editor, we'll drop this from our milestone list." WGCs, IMHO, take too many responsibilities on themselves; and burnout too often follows. :^( -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf