[urn] Re: improved management of registration requests

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback. Comments inline.

On 2/4/25 8:35 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Peter, others,
> 
> Many thanks to you and the review team for all your great work, 
> including this proposal.
> 
> On 2025-02-05 07:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This message is mostly for discussion among the expert review team, 
>> but I'm sending it to the public list for greater transparency.
>>
>> At times, we (mostly I as the team lead) have forgotten to take action 
>> on registration requests, as just happened with the `c2pa` namespace. 
>> This is not the quality of service we owe to the community.
> 
> This is a very laudable sentiment, and whatever can be done to improve 
> things is a move in the right direction. However, we should be careful 
> to not create the wrong expectations. All reviewers are volunteers, and 
> there are many other ways things can go wrong. I think we should be 
> clear that submitters should just send another mail if they don't hear 
> back for a long time.

Sometimes registrants poke me off list, sometimes on list. I suppose 
that they could also do the poking via an issue tracker if we put one 
place. Another thing that an issue tracker might be able to do is send a 
message to me as the team lead if there has been no activity related to 
a request after, say, 60 days. Sometimes I really just do forget about 
things in the queue, and that's not good.

> when they don't respond to requests. IANA also gives the experts 
> deadlines for their responses. Maybe that's also something that could be 
> considered here. [I'd note that there are way more media subtype 
> requests than urn scheme requests, while the later are on average quite 
> a bit more elaborate. So I think the focus below on github for tweaking 
> proposals is quite appropriate.]

Good to know.

Peter