On 1/19/2016 5:54 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> Indeed, though we do need to remember that we're all volunteers here, >> > and we do what we can. Delays on handling some things (let's say, the >> > final editing of 5226bis, for example) shouldn't directly be grounds >> > for action. Consistent patterns of delays, or delays that appear to >> > be targeted and/or purposeful, should definitely be brought to an AD's >> > attention for investigation and appropriate action. > > I don't think deliberate problems are the issue, the problem I see is people > taking on more work than they can do FWIW, this whole process is managed manually right now. It's quite easy to lose track of things in that process. We process quite a few requests. For example, according to my logs, we've been averaging about 130 requests/year, and each requests averages around 8 emails, or about 20 messages a week - as a team. I monitor all of these, as well as participating in 1/Nth of the reviews and as backup on late reviews. My turnaround is approximately 1 business day, excepting vacations (about 1 week most of the time). Yes, we do have occasional delays, but they're as often on the applicant side as the reviewer. A lot of our delays are the result of incomplete or incomprehensible applications, FWIW. Overall, I think our team has been doing a pretty good job, though. Yes, there are some corner cases - and those are the ones you all hear about more, but I don't think it's a significant enough fraction of the overall workload to warrant over-managing with mechanism to address these rare exceptions. Joe