Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art

Harald,

> I don't think this discussion is terribly productive, so I'll shut up 
> after this....
Indeed, it is difficult to have a productive discussion when postings fail 
to respond to the meat of a proposal with which they disagree, preferring 
instead to focus on generalities and wordsmithing.
It should not be surprising how consistently discussions like these are 
derailed in this manner, but for some reason, it still is.

> my point, as far as I had one, was that you were making a general 
> statement about arbitrary rules, without reference to any particular set 
> of them.
First your focus, here, on the word "arbitrary" has little or nothing to do 
with your previous posting.  Even if it did, it ignores the meat of the 
3-bullet list I gave, choosing to focus on a single vocabulary choice, in 
one of the bullets, that really is not essential to the points I was (and 
try to continue to) make.
My best guess is that your focus, here, is merely latching on to the line of 
distraction that was raised in the private note sent to the two of us.

> You have claimed that the I-D submission deadline is arbitrary, despite 
> the fact that people have advanced two separate reasons for them 
> (reduced load on staff just before the meetings and giving people time 
> to read).
Notice how nicely you are ignoring my suggestion of an alternate term: 
misguided?
Notice that paying attention to that alternate term makes your current focus 
quite meaningless.
It also might mean you would have to focus on the counter-arguments that 
have been raised, namely that the rule is not effective against 
inappropriate late postings and that it has a negative impact on legitimate 
late postings.
This seems to be the usual way that suggestions for change are met:  Focus 
on fears of abuse that a procedure ostensibly responds to, and ignore 
observations that they do not work and that they have undesireable negative 
impacts.

> I have claimed that I think your ideas for chopping off working groups 
> that fail to meet fairly rigid deadlines are not useful (because they 
> will be seen as arbiatrary), despite the fact that you think differently.
If you want to re-discuss the working group time limit proposal, please 
raise it on a separate thread, rather than making it another point of 
distraction in the current thread.

> I suggest that we retire accusations of "arbitrariness" from the 
> discussion, and rather try to discuss real and perceived effects of the 
> rules.
Already done, as you know.

You seem to be the only one continuing to use the word.

d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf