Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Tue May 24 2005 09:18, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
On Tue May 24 2005 08:35, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 5:57 PM -0400 5/10/05, Bruce Lilly wrote:
OK, I'll bite -- where are the statistics (I know of one
WG that has been
active for more than 8 years and has set to produce a
single document for
IESG review; that's got to skew the statistics a bit)?
I can't talk to whatever went on in USEFOR prior to 2004, but I have
appointed two new co-chairs to help the group evaluate and meet it's
goals. Something (either document production or a working group action)
should happen within the next few months.
I should clarify a few points:
1. sorry for the typo in the original "set" should be "yet"
2. the intent was not to cast aspersions on the cognizant ADs (past
or present) or WG Chairs (past or present), or to discuss possible
causes for the situation -- indeed, obviously I didn't even name
the WG until asked -- but merely to observe that the history of at
least one WG seemed to be out of whack with what was asserted was
shown by some statistics.
I'd like statistics too. To be slightly provocative, if the average
times are forced upwards by a long tail of WGs/drafts/RFCs that
take extremely long times to get done due to one-of-a-kind reasons,
it would seem fair to remove thoses cases from consideration. We should
probably concentrate on causes of delay that affect the mode of the
distribution, not the tail.
Ietf mailing list