Joel,
I agree with your observation completely. One
essential problem with allowing WGs to independently
determine their own deadlines is that this tries to
assert that impact on people's scheduling needs in a
WG is independent of similar needs for other working
groups. Because all of the working groups meet in a
single week and the mix of WGs that each individual
wants/needs to participate in is not the same for all
participants, it is best if all working groups use a
single common deadline, posted - as is currently the
case - in each meeting's "important meeting dates".
Perhaps in the fully automated processing Dave
posits for our future, it will be sufficient for the
automated processing to flag a submission as being
beyond the cut-off - both to the submitter and to the
targetted WG(s).
This would certainly be an improvement over the
current process that results in an apparent hold on
processing anything that is beyond the cut-off - thus
making it very difficult for a WG to effectively make
an exception.
Also, there would be no more of an "enforcement"
element in this approach than there is in "enforcement"
of template and other formatting requirements in the
proposed automated processing.
But - as Dave said - all this is predicated on
the existence of a fully automated submission process.
That's an important dependency, because it will never -
quite - happen. There will always be a need for manual
intervention and - assuming a largely automated process
- the resources available to handle manual intervention
would likely become scarce.
Consequently, with an automated submission process,
it will usually be the case that a draft submission can
be made independent of processing delays - but - it will
occasionally be the case that an arbitrarily large delay
will be incurred in processing a specific submission. I
am not sure that this would necessarily be an improvement
- however - in such a case, an early submission date that
takes into account the possible processing requirement
will help.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
--> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:35 PM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
-->
--> There is an aspect of the deadline that is helpful for me,
--> even when the deadline is not rigidly enforced.
-->
--> The presence of the deadline means that the bulk of I-Ds
--> are in by the deadline, and are out by not too long after
--> the deadline.
-->
--> This means that I can collect announcements for I-Ds of
--> interest and have time to read the I-Ds across most of the
--> range of working groups that I try to stay current on.
-->
--> If working groups as a matter of course published I-Ds
--> within a few days of the meeting, it would be almost
--> impossible for me to read most of what I need to in order
--> to be an informed participant.
-->
--> Yours,
--> Joel
-->
--> At 01:10 PM 11/29/2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
--> >...
--> > A simpler rule is that the working group gets to decide
--> > its deadlines and what will be discussed at the meeting.
--> > (All of this is predicated on moving towards fully
--> > automated I-D issuance.)
--> >
--> >
--> >d/
--> >--
--> >
--> >Dave Crocker
--> >Brandenburg InternetWorking
--> ><http://bbiw.net>
--> >
--> >_______________________________________________
--> >Ietf mailing list
--> >Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf