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

[Bound, Jim]

this is very useful thanks.  

The IESG has to much work.

This to me proves we need the SIR.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fenner [mailto:fenner at research.att.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:34 PM
> To: randy at psg.com
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was:Re:DoingtheRight Things?)
> 
> 
> 
> >maybe we should look at the time to process through iesg and the
> >reasons we can find.  i do not claim to know any answer, but of
> >course have silly perceptions based on my narrow little view of the
> >movie.  so it would be really good to have some actual data.  would
> >be nice if bill, harald, or someone with time could find a way to
> >get something real on which we could base a discussion.
> 
> I just wrote a quick hack to analyze the data I have, and put the
> results at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/iesg/docstates.txt .  There
> are two types of entries in this file - one for the first time
> we see a document in my snapshots, e.g.
> 
> 20020506        draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis    entered 
> system in Requested
> 
> and then once for each time it changes state:
> 
> 20030312        draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis    IESG 
> Evaluation -> Approved-announcement to be sent after 11 days
> 
> There is some noise in the data, like the tildes swapping with dashes
> in this example:
> 
> 20030426        draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups     IESG 
> Evaluation ~~ Revised ID Needed -> IESG Evaluation  -- 
> Revised ID Needed after 170 days
> 20030525        draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups     IESG 
> Evaluation  -- Revised ID Needed -> IESG Evaluation ~~ 
> Revised ID Needed after 29 days
> 
> but I'll wait for some evidence that cleaning up the data is desired
> or useful before putting more work into it.  (plenty of data, not
> clear if there's any information...)
> 
>   Bill
>