--On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:04 +0000 "t.p." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Time to publication of an RFC can be reduced by cutting out > the pauses, which could achieved by highlighting when they > occur. > > This can be done by a tool which, for every active Working > Group, runs monthly and, for every draft adopted by the > Working Group, records whether or not there has been a change > and posts this list as an e-mail to the list of the Working > Group. Where a new version has been submitted to Tools, then > this new version is listed with the date of submission. Where > the status has changed, as recorded in the tracker (AD Review, > IETF LC, Publication Approved etc), then the new status is > listed with the date of change. Where nothing has changed, > then this is listed with the date of the last change. >... Tom, This is interesting but could also introduce a pathology in which drafts are generated too frequently to encourage (or even permit) healthy discussion. If one were going to do this, also collecting some statistics on how much (or whether) a given draft was being discussed on a WG mailing list might be very important. New drafts and indications of motion like status changes may be good clues but what really counts for measures of progress and consensus is whether real discussion is going on. john
