Re: PROTO Process

[Henk Uijterwaal <henk at ripe.net>]

Jari,

> - the fact that 82% of drafts have to be modified during AD review - 
> IESG review (and the rest probably have RFC Editor notes)

I think it'd be good if we could split the modifications into
"technical" and "editorial".  ID's are often written by engineers
who do not have English as their first language.  Reviewers (WG
chairs, sheperds, AD's) don't have that either and aren't trained
into reviewing documents without paying attention to the technical
content.   If we find that there is a large number of editorial
comments per draft, then it might make sense to do an editorial
review first.

> - there is at least anecdotal evidence that for many drafts, there is a 
> long wait for new version or a response to review comments
[...]
> - Reminding everyone that if the holdup on a particular issue is due to 
> an unresponsive AD, you can contact Russ to send a reminder.

I think that if we want to improve this, we should first define what an
acceptable time for a response from an author (or AD) is.

Henk

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
         hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.