Time required to write down "wisdom" (Re: "Adult supervision")

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Hi Keith,

> > I am not advocating pushing documents forward without adequate
> > review, but much more for having pro-active editors, WG chairs
> > and sheparding ADs to make sure the documents are getting done
> > in a timely fashion, especially ones identified as important.
> > This is more about breakdown in management, in my opinion.
> 
> It's one thing to require this of WG documents.  It's somewhat harder to
> imagine how to apply it to individual submissions.

I agree we can enable this with WG, IESG or IAB documents - individual
submissions are another story, of course.

> And in general, having people be more pro-active means giving them more time
> to work on things, which might be beyond our control.

Also, setting the right timers so that documents don't sit around waiting
because there has been miscommunication between the relavant parties. 
In the past, there has not always been clear communication whether the
IESG, WG, AD or document editor has the token for a document when it
is being reviewed by the IESG.

Also, I think that WG chairs should monitor documents under their charter
more closely to ensure that they progress.

br,
John