What we know from history (that Stewart alluded to) is that errata
processing times are quite variable.
The factor Stewart got hit by is the attention the AD(s) pay to it.
A factor John alluded to is, for example, when we had an interested and
supportive individual read every RFC and note every grammatical error
they found as an errata.
And yes, it does help if WGs are responsive to errata as well.
But trying to perform statistical analysis on the numbers is likely to
appear to tell us things that just aren't so.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/6/2019 11:57 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 6/8/19 18:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php
That's the general search page.
I think that Fernando wants to know how many are in each state (on a per-WG,
and per-area basis), and to see this as time-series such that we can plot
things and see if we are doing better or worse.
Exactly.
To be able to quickly answer: how long, in average, does it take a a
technical errata in the X Area to be processed? Has this value changed
over time? etc etc
Thanks!
Cheers,
