Re: Another IESG Charter revision

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> I also object to the assertion that RFC editor queue documents are
> given lower priority and that we somehow encourage stuff to go there
> when we want to somehow delay it. This is one of the things Klensin's
> has asserted in the past. I.e., He has asserted at times that the IESG
> has consciously put in place some sort of policy that rfc editor
> documents get low service (including the IESG processing of those
> documents).

I think the relatively new ISR at the rfc-editor adds delay.
Before this was in place I think a request to rfc-ed to publish a document
would more or less immediately cause rfc-ed to sent it to the IESG.

I don't know if the time in ISR is getting more stable than ti was
initially, but the added review is likely to add some delay even if the IESG
treats the documents the same independent of their arrival
path.

   Erik