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

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at
Mon Jun 9 15:53:51 CEST 2003

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr at] 
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:15 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: Dave Crocker; problem-statement at
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was:Re:DoingtheRight Things?)
> Randy Bush <randy at> 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]

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list