If I understand the two choices you present are:
1) the wg has to decide to overrule a default deadline;
2) the wg has to decide on all of its own deadlines.
It seems to me (granted I have limited experience) that the administrative
overhead is actually higher in the second case -- frequently it is simplifies
things to just have a default case.
The question is who enforces a deadline.
Having the Secretariat enforce it means that the Secretariat must be
involved in exceptions. That's high overhead and delay.
The alternative is to move both policy and enforcement to the working group.
Given the amount of agenda-bashing, document-negotiation, etc. that already
must (and should) take place within a working group, I think that the matter
of deciding submission deadlines is a small increment.
That said, it can't hurt to have a "guideline" for a 2-week deadline, or the
like, so that a chair can declare that to be in effect as the default.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf