IETF problem pinpointing - the followup

[Kurt D. Zeilenga]

At 09:55 AM 2002-11-05, Jim Whitehead wrote:
>> >- What are the issues we want raised during the problem-session?
>>
>> -Speed of the entire process
>>    -Issues with getting a WG to complete work on a draft
>>    -IESG speed
>>    -RFC Editor speed
>
>I agree that speed is important. But, equally important is *predictability*
>of how long various review and editorial processes will take.
>Right now, if someone asks, "how long will it take to get draft X published
>as an RFC once a WG finishes their deliberations," the answer is "anywhere
>from a month to a year (or more)".

Or, "we'll see."

I believe the process should be deliberate but responsive.  That
is, everyone should know when a response is due and what are the
kinds of responses which may be given.  A perfectly reasonable
responses include "more time is need".  (This response should come
with a reason and an indication of how much time is needed.)

>This makes early implementation of the
>specification a high-risk activity. Many organizations would benefit from
>having a reliable upper bound on the time a particular process may take.

I don't believe it possible to provide a reliable upper bound
on the time it will take for an I-D to make its way through
the process.

Kurt