On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote: > By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated > themselves about the document. >
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IESG education. OK. > > So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to AD workload and > includes a simple efficiency hack: > > When the IETF Last Call is issued, wait a few days, to see whether > any serious issues are raised by the community. The really serious ones > usually are raised quickly. If there are none, it's pretty certain the > document will advance to an IESG vote. That leaves 7-10 days of IETF Last > Call for ADs to get educated and ask questions, just like everyone else. > Placing a time limit on some phase of the process doesn't produce quality. The process should take as long as it must in order to produce a good outcome. The question shouldn't be how long the process takes (that's just a cheap shortcut), it should be how to make it more efficient in doing well. I have an idea: let's place a time limit on working groups: they need to finish drafts in six weeks or there will be penalties. Why not? Scott
