time-to-approve etc. [Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jun 9 16:11:58 CEST 2003

--On mandag, juni 09, 2003 15:06:50 +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi> 

>> As I noted at the time, the variance of time-to-approve is quite
>> large, even for documents that are approved by the IETF as-is. That's
>> not completely inconsistent with document quality, but if the
>> documents that are taking a long time to clear (>100 days) are really
>> that low quality, it's somewhat surprising that they aren't sent back
>> for revision.
> It might be interesting to note a few more fine-grained metrics for
> determining the document quality, e.g.:
>  - the number of DISCUSS votes raised in the IESG

this could possibly serve as a metric of the number of *different* concerns 
raised by the IESG, but because of the IESG's common practice of saying "no 
further objections" when everyone agrees that the important problems 
they've seen have already have been flagged, it's not a measure of the 
percieved depth of the problems found.

>    * and how soon after raising the DISCUSSes a new document is published
> which addresses those issues (ie. the time it's not an IESG issue)

this metric could be very interesting, if we can measure it.

>  - documents which were approved as-is, but an RFC editor note was added
> by the IESG (causing some delay)

I don't think this adds delay, except for the cases where:
- the IESG takes time to write up the RFC Editor note
- the author or WG objects to the content of the note
The first happens a few times, but is usually (in my recent experience) on 
the order of a week. Have people seen the second happen much?

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list