RE: Out of the box proposal

[Ross Callon <rcallon at juniper.net>]

> If the process, tools, responsibility and incentives for IESG Approval
> are unchanged, then I believe this editor cycle would not materially
> reduce the number of issues found by the IESG.  Like code, one can
> always find more bugs.  And the importance of a "bug" always looms
> large in the eye of the finder.

I agree. Professional staff can be very good at finding editorial /
grammatical problems. However, the RFC editor's staff already does a
good job of this, and I don't think that these are the sorts of issues
that are causing delays in IESG review of documents. 

> Perhaps if we suggested to NomCom to select less conscientious ADs?
>
> Lisa

;-)

Ross


On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Eric Burger
<eburger at standardstrack.com> wrote:
> If we really think the problem is 80% of the documents are not ready
for
> IESG submission when the WG thinks it is, and if 80% of those
documents have
> "classic" bugs, I would offer we do the (gasp) ITU-T thing and hire
3-4
> full-time, PAID (i.e., IETF/IAD/ISOC staff) experts to review
submissions
> before they get to the IESG.
>
> A week or two lag in Editor Purgatory(tm) would be well worth it if it
saves
> 50-100 days of AD/Author cycling.