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

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 10. november 2005 08:28 +0200 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:
>> The IESG has had .. less than stellar track record of responding to the
>> bottleneck problems.  As a matter of fact, I do not recall a single
>> improvement which would have had _significant_ on throughput. While the
>> transparency of the work has improved over the years, this has obviously
>> not had significant impact on the amount of work getting done.
>
> I believe that it has.
>
> In terms of approved RFCs, the situation of 2005 is that the IESG moves 
> approximately double the number of documents that it did in 2002.
> ...
> You may dismiss that "mere" factor of two as an insignificant change in 
> throughput. I won't - I have too much respect for the cost that the people 
> who managed to do it paid to achieve it.

Fair point, and I'm sorry for sounding unfair.  In my earlier message, 
I had actually listed successes which have no doubt had an impact in 
what you've said (genart, proto work, I-D tracker, tools, uptake on 
education, etc.). Maybe mistakenly I removed that (this) discussion in 
the sake of conciseness before posting.

But, "less is more".  [The IESG] doing more (if it's not around an 
order of magnitude more) may help in the short term, but not in the 
longer term.  Especially if the amount of work done is not static or 
decreasing over time.

(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.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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