Subject: RE: internet draft backlog

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:58:58 -0500

Actually, my experience has been comparing, say,
ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-svrloc-wasrv-01.txt to the 00
version - the 00 version was incredibly all-encompassing (we identified
five different IDs), while 01 dropped ideas and clarified what they'd
gotten positive feedback on. Perhaps David is telling me the distinction
should be "conceptual content" versus "editing changes"? 

Could there be a later deadline for "editing-only"? With the obvious
side effect that they won't get as much attention, so hiding content
changes as editorial changes will just mean a backlash at IETF ("you
thought that was EDITORIAL?")

Spencer Dawkins, Nortel

>----------
>From: 	David W. Morris[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Monday, December 08, 1997 8:54 AM
>To: 	Fred Baker
>Cc: 	Dawkins, Spencer (P.S.); [email-masked]'
>Subject: 	RE: internet draft backlog
>
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> At 8:32 PM -0500 12/7/97, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> >There is one variant I'd like to suggest- using a different cut-off
>> >date for 00 drafts. To me, getting minimal notice for a 05 draft isn't
>> >THAT big a problem if you read 04, but getting a draft of a completely
>> >new set of concepts IS a big problem.
>> 
>> So, you'd like us (for example) to use a four week cut-off for -00 draftsm
>> and half that for other drafts?
>
>NO, that would be absurd. It is incredibly simplistic to expect that a
>brief -00 draft written to summarize believed concensus or at least a
>heavily discussed position requires more time to absorb than a -05
>draft which might be a major revision with substantial changes to the
>-04.
>
>There is no reasonable way to correlate time to absorb material with
>naming. It depends on too many subjective factors.
>
>It always seems like the shoemaker's children don't get shoes. Right now,
>it appears that the draft submission process is broken and sorely in
>need of the kind of network application support that the IETF should
>have lots of expertise with.
>
>We have different meeting fees based upon time of registration, I presume
>to encourage registration behavior which reduces secretariat staff 
>workload.
>
>We could implement a straight forward draft sumbmission process using
>a WWW form. Use the form and associated processing to do the scutt work
>of draft handling. To insure some semblence of order, use the web 
>process to stage new/revised drafts for a final quick human check.
>Acceptable drafts (by what ever rules already exist) would require a
>single button click to store.
>
>Such a process could even support WG based draft deadlines for ietf
>(vs. individual) drafts. Even allow the WG chair to accept late drafts,
>etc.
>
>New draft name assignment would be reasonable to have an earlier cutoff
>for than actual submission.
>
>The current manual process could be retained for those unwilling/unable
>to use the automated process AND it would be very reasonable to  
>establish a significantly earlier deadline for manual submissions.
>
>I suspect that such an automated process could be justified in terms
>of actually hiring a competent consultant to do the implementation
>based on substantially reduced staff costs associated with handling
>drafts over a couple of years.  Not counting the potential for 
>reducing the frustration of many many volunteers.
>
>Dave Morris
>
>

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:10:42 -0800 (PST)

> thought that was EDITORIAL?")

NO what I'm telling you is that it is not pracatical to make arbitrary
decisions about deadlines based on external meta properties whether
machine asserted (the draft #) or author asserted.

Thus, and because it makes sense, I think the process should be brought
out of the dark ages. It seems very  unreasonable for me that the
volunteers who often have serious time conflicts must further bend
their schedules in order to accomadate a manual process which most
experienced application systems architects would view as open for
substanatial improvement.

Dave Morris