Summary of decisions and actions from IESG Efficiency retreat, 2006-01-30/31 ============================================================== Present: all ADs (Ted Hardie absent on day 2), Barbara Fuller, Leslie Daigle, Ray Pelletier. Henrik Lefkowetz by phone for one item. Marshall Eubanks scribed raw notes; this summary was drafted by Brian Carpenter. 1. Target times for IESG processing ----------------------------------- Since the I-D tracker came into existence, the mean time for a draft to get though the IESG is 182 days (median 286 days, with a long tail up to 950 days). (These numbers include time waiting for authors or WGs to respond to comments.) These data cover the entire history captured in the I-D tracker and do not represent current performance. The benefits of recent improvements such as PROTO shepherding and narrower criteria for DISCUSS ballots are not visible. Nevertheless they are a wake-up call and the IESG wants to improve them substantially. Decision: set a target of 4 IESG cycles (normally 8 weeks) from entry to either approve a draft or send it back to the WG with actionable comments. (Entry to this period is the forml "publication requested" state in the tracker.) We need to set sub-targets to make that real. It's understood that there is considerable variability in practice, but without targets we have no way to monitor progress in detail. Decision: target time in Publication Requested is 7 days. After that the AD is expected to move it to AD Evaluation (AD is watching and Dead are also valid transitions in theory). Action: Mark Townsley, ask Secretariat to attach PROTO writeup as comment when a draft enters Publication Requested. [Done] Decision: target time for AD Evaluation is 14 days. Decision: target time for IETF Last Call is 14 days. Decision: target time for Waiting for Writeup and to get onto the agenda with ballot and writeup ready is 0-7 days, depending on where the end of Last Call lies relative to the next telechat. (Alternative exit here is back to the WG to resolve comments - Revised ID needed.) Decision: After IESG evaluation with DISCUSSes, AD gets back to PROTO shepherd (WG documents) or authors (non-WG documents) with actionable comments within 7 days. The state is Revised ID Needed or AD Followup, but the AD is on the hook in both cases, until handing off to the shepherd or authors. Decision: After IESG evaluation with point raised/writeup needed, target is zero days - immediate action by the AD. Exceptions: 28 day last call for non-WG drafts. 14 days if an AD needs to DEFER the draft. Contentious last calls. Late expert review (should come before Publication Requested) Decision: target time in Revised ID Needed is 14 days after the authors are notified. After that the AD starts chivying the PROTO shepherd or authors to commit to a firm date, if appropriate recorded as a WG milestone. Summarizing: 1 week in Publication-Requested, 2 weeks in AD evaluation, 2 weeks for last call (4 weeks for non-WG), 0 days for waiting for write-up, 0 days for waiting for AD go head, 2-3 weeks for IESG evaluation, 1 week for PROTO shepherd or AD to report actionable DISCUSS comments, 2 weeks for revised ID (after authors are notified) Then straight back on the agenda, or DISCUSSes cleared on-line. 2. The IESG Manual ------------------ The wiki is available. Decision: it needs a write-protect password Action: Henrik Levkowetz, password protect the wiki [Done] Action: Brian Carpenter, ask secretariat to add a pointer to this on the IESG internal page. [Done] Action: all ADs, write and maintain the section(s) agreed to [In progress] 3. Staff support ---------------- Action: Scott Hollenbeck and Allison Mankin to firm up a job description for comment by the IESG and forwarding to the IAOC. Deadline: Before Dallas. 4. Dashboard project -------------------- Action: Tools people to show us a prototype by Dallas 5. IESG chairing/facilitating ----------------------------- Decision: the IESG definitely wants proactive facilitating and progress-chasing of its activities. Successive IETF chairs have found it impossible to make enough time for this. Decision: Bill Fenner and Russ Housley will act as IESG Whips for this purpose. The word "whip" is borrowed from its use in many parliamentary systems such as those of India or Singapore as well as the main Western parliamentary democracies. Action: Bill and Russ to produce final draft job description. [Done, in the wiki] 6. Round table -------------- Action: ADs to make sure their useful tips are all put into the wiki. Action: ADs to make sure their tracker gripes are all sent to the wishlist.