Re: Timeline for TPE Last Call and Update of Acknowledgements

On 2014-03-25 2:40 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I wrote:
>
>> A more "complex" document for the audience to digest, but when a
>> technical spec needs only be reviewed by technologists, 9 weeks seems
>> reasonable. When a technical spec that contains lots of policy needs
>> to be reviewed by so many different interest groups we should expect
>> at least as much opportunity.
> We base the length of LC periods on the complexity of the spec. Simpler
> or smaller specs get shorter review periods, because it takes less time
> for a person to review them. The size or diversity of the reviewer pool
> is completely irrelevant, because they review the spec in parallel.
I can't opine on what's appropriate for other working groups, but that 
is clearly the wrong metric for this one. While it's true that a shorter 
document takes less time to read, that has very limited bearing on the 
amount of time it will take for the affected companies to turn around 
comments for this spec. You have to consider a number of factors, 
including, for example, the complexity of the issues, the novelty of the 
issues to the reviewers, and the resources available to the reviewers to 
analyze and respond to the document. (Most of us companies with tens or 
a few hundred employees, rather than tens of thousands of employees, 
don't have any, much less multiple, staff dedicated to standards work.) 
You should also consider the time it will take for affected companies to 
even become aware of the opportunity to offer comments. So, if you truly 
want feedback from the companies who are going to have to implement 
this, and who are going to be affected by it, you need to give more time.
-David

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 21:05:33 UTC