> Working groups were taking around 500 days and now take around 600. > > The IESG was taking around 200 days and now takes around 110. > > The RFC then and now takes around 100 days (with lots of variation > between the then and the now, of course.) > > Considering the 'now' set of relationships among the phases, The IESG > is adding about 20% on top of the working group, and the RFC Editor is > adding another 20% on top of the working group. In other words, once > a working group considers itself done, they are probably only around > 70% done... > > The total, today appears to be around 3 years to get a specification > developed and published. That's for one document, not the set of them > that might be needed to produce a useful service... > > A basic question, then, is whether we think these absolute numbers and > these proportions of time are reasonable and appropriate for the IETF > to be/remain effective? seems pretty reasonable to me. from personal experience, the iesg and rfced add useful value. being in a many-year process of getting a technology through the saussage machine, it's the wg that feels to me to be the most inefficient part of the process. i attribute this to email not being the best medium, and meetings being too short and too far between. but that is purely subjective. randy