<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 19/03/2019 18:11, Jörg Knobloch wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:aea4a9d3-b5ab-2a8f-dbce-6c660368fb16@jorgk.com"
type="cite">My conclusion is that everyone is happy with waiting
times of up to six months since the discussion has drifted
elsewhere (like on so many occasions).
<br>
<br>
That's a positive signal, so we leave it as it is, case closed.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Unmoderated discussions do drift. It doesn't necessarily mean that
the original issue has been satisfactorily addressed. ;-)<br>
<br>
No, since you ask, I don't think that waiting 6 months for review is
acceptable (and it greatly surprises me that it is that long) but I
did not comment on your original post since it's something that I
did not feel that I could reasonably comment on (I only commented
later because the thread had *already* drifted at that stage).<br>
<br>
Is there a break down of review waiting times? It's not clear to me
from your post what percentage of reviews are actually taking that
long.<br>
<br>
If it's commonly taking six months then I can only presume that it's
due to lack of volunteers or, as you suggested, stalled reviews
outside the control of reviewers. Since I am not in a position to
volunteer as an ATN reviewer it feels a bit hypocritical for me to
say that the situation is unacceptable.<br>
<br>
So I suppose the question is: Are more reviewers needed?<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Rousell
</pre>
</body>
</html>