Re: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> writes:

> (However, I believe the improvements made have resulted in tremendous 
> increase in *transparency* and the ability to figure out what's going 
> on; that certainly could have resulted in dramatic decrease of 
> complaints.)

In my experience, transparency (as a side-effect) increases
efficiency. Do not underestimate the importance of it being clear
clear who has the token and what the token holder is expected to
do. Compared to the pre-tracker days, this has had a significant
impact. While I was an AD, it was not uncommon to see authors go
directly to Tracker after a telechat and start dealing with IESG
comments before I had been able to get around and send them mail
saying what had happened. In those cases, one (perhaps small)
bottleneck had been removed.

IMO, there is significant potential here to develop improved tools to
make this happen routinely. For example, if tracker was better about
sending mail on certain events (like after a telechat, including the
review comments). Or, if it was smart about sending reminders
(document has been in "revised version needed" for > N weeks), or "New
Version posted", check outstanding discuss comments (with followup
reminders when this doesn't happen), etc.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss