Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 2) It seems that we would need more staff. Even if we assumed that the
early
> review saved later work, I doubt it saves all the later work. And the
time
> frame the RPC currently aims to meet for reviews is longer than we would
want
> for something like a last-call / IESG processing review (which while it
often
> takes longer, we aim for 4 - 6 weeks.)
Yes.
But, consider that some of this work is being done by the IESG.
That's our MOST EXPENSIVE resource.
The work is already occuring, but by the wrong people.
This time sink is getting in the way of the IESG actually doing things like
mentoring WG chairs to manage document process better so that we don't have
to spend so much time fixing document :-)
> 3) This would also seem to need changes to the RPC work flow, since what
the
> RPC reviews is not the I-D that we work with during development.
We need it to be done as late as possible, but early enough that it catches
SVG and english issues before we spend too much resources reviewing the
document.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
