Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:DoingtheRight Things?)

[Bound, Jim]

time to approve is a problem.  can we agree on that?
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr at rtfm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:15 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: Dave Crocker; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was:Re:DoingtheRight Things?)
> 
> 
> Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> writes:
> 
> > > The point I'm trying to make (and tried to make in SF) 
> was that it 
> > > seems to me that a rather small part of the variation in 
> how long a 
> > > document takes to clear the IESG is the quality of the document 
> > > (whatever that means).
> > 
> > and what substantiates that perception?
> Well, there's people's personal experience, of course, but as 
> we all know, the plural of anecdote is not data.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Do I have any totally convincing evidence? No. It's just my 
> intuition, combined with the lack of strong evidence to the 
> contrary.  However, to the extent to which people believe 
> that the quality effect is small then there's no incentive to 
> quality, regardless of whether it's in fact true. I of course 
> can't speak for what other people believe, though I imagine 
> that that would be relatively easy to discover without too 
> much complicated analyiss.
> 
> Really, 
> -Ekr
> 
> -- 
> [Eric Rescorla                                   ekr at rtfm.com]
>                 http://www.rtfm.com/
>