MAJOR ISSUE: Causes of problems

[todd glassey]

So Brian - wouldn't redefining the standard's workflow to be a mechanical
process of "cafeteria style steps" be better. It certainly would alleviate
the congestion since the IESG would have less peer review in their level.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
To: <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: MAJOR ISSUE: Causes of problems


> Indeed. This is exactly why I harp on about expanding the
> number of people trusted to perform peer review, over
> in solution space.
>
> The problem here is indeed that we have made the IESG
> into a bottleneck for peer review, with evident consequences
> for queueing times.
>
>   Brian
>
> "spencer at mcsr-labs.org" wrote:
> >
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > I think this falls in the same category as a group of people
> > who know what synchronization does to congestion, but
> > who continue to let all of the afternoon sessions out at the
> > same time the cookies arrive.
> >
> > We should know better, but...
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> > To: "Bernard Aboba" <aboba at internaut.com>
> > Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 4:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: MAJOR ISSUE: Causes of "problems"
> >
> > >
> > > In general, we often seem to treat ourselves as having infinite
> > > resources.  For a community well-versed in queuing theory, this is
> > > rather strange.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > http://mail2web.com/ .
>