I haven't gone through all of the e-mails,
but at least I'd like to register an opinion.
I think the cut-off policies need to be changed.
Here are some reasons:
- There are many revisions of working-group drafts
posted to private websites after the cutoff
- I have had drafts miss the cutoff because
of some unpredictable slowness at the last
minute
- The extreme panic at the last minute seems to
encourage mistakes.
I do understand the benefits of having a deadline,
and setting deadlines has a way of improving
productivity. But we need a structured way to
overcome the flaws also.
I think the problem is a tad more fundamental than that. There's
a disconnect between our mailing list discussions and the face-to-
face discussions. From a computer geek perspective, the mailing
lists and document updates are in some sense pipelined, until a
meeting approaches, and the sync between active mailing list
participants and occasional f2f meeting participants results in
a pipeline stall.
I suspect that this disconnect is inevitable, and what we really
need to realize is that the mailing list and the f2f discussions
inherently have somewhat different participants and different
purposes, and modify our procedures accordingly.
For instance, instead of trying to get a new draft out before
the cutoff date, perhaps the authors should just produce a list
of proposed changes to be made from the last published draft.
Then f2f attendees could be expected to read the (somewhat older)
draft along with the list of proposed changes.
Keith
p.s. I'd actually argue that our deadlines are too late, as there is
not enough time the week or two before the meeting to read all of
the drafts. So people show up at the meetings unprepared.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf