I invoke the end to end argument. The working groups know best
whether they will consider late contributions. Working groups already
go around the deadlines when they want to anyway, and some publish
even stronger deadlines, or exclude drafts for other reasons. The
draft process level cutoff does a partial job that sometimes gets in
the way - a classic e2e situation. Let the draft process be nice and
simple and straightforward, without unnecessary bling.
Scott
On Aug 1, 2011, at 17:47, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Speaking for myself, I *highly* value the existing twin cutoff dates.
It makes it possible to perform triage on the drafts before the meeting,
and to read a reasonable number of them that seem important with some care.
Allowing drafts to be posted right up to the start of the meeting would
make any kind of systematic triage impossible, so I would end up reading
drafts at random - or more likely, sitting back and waiting to be spoon-fed
the PowerPoint.
Bad idea, which would detract from the effectiveness of WG sessions.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf