On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:51 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> And yes, it does help if WGs are responsive to errata as well.
> FWIW, I do think when an appropriate WG is available, they should work
> on emptying the errata queue.
> Like bugs, if nobody cares in patching, why would folks care to report?
1) If WG-chairs could change the state themselves that would help.
2) If WG sessions had a number of errata as part of the status slide,
then that would probably help close the loop.
I agree with this. Errata needs to be delegated further to improve processing. If all of the ones that existed where there is an open WG could be handled by the chairs, they would be more familiar with each errata, who the experts were that could approve them, and may have the history having been chairs for a long period of time.
Some ADs simply don't think errata is useful. I handled some, but worked with ADs who didn't care about them. As a result, Security has the second highest score, leaving Ben and Roman with a bit too much to deal with at this point.
If there's no WG that remains or never was one, it would be nice if those could be delegated too. The usual process is for editors of the draft to review the errata and respond on list as to their thoughts. Then the AD is able to press the buttons. Maybe someone else could monitor the list conversations and update the text in the errata filing accordingly with a link to said email confirmations and press the buttons?
Best regards,
Kathleen
>> But trying to perform statistical analysis on the numbers is likely to
>> appear to tell us things that just aren't so.
> Not much of an analysis, but more of a simple way to spot where there
> might be room for improvement.
Agreed.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Best regards,
Kathleen
