On Aug 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think removing the cutoff is the right approach here.
I'd prefer that some date remain on the list of important meeting dates
to remind ourselves that revisions should be in in time for people to
read them.
If memory serves, the original purpose of the cutoff was to avoid overtaxing
the resources of the Secretariat in the period immediately prior to IETF
meetings. But it has also come in handy for ADs and others who feel the
need to keep up with large numbers of documents from a variety of working
groups. I wouldn't blame any AD or WG chair for imposing a "no drafts
submitted after the cutoff can be discussed at the meeting" rule.
It's one of the tools that assists with the volume. Not discussing documents
which have not been socialized even if they did make the deadline is another.
While I'm sure consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, having global
default deadlines is of great assistance while pursuing work across multiple
groups and areas.
Keith
_______________________________________________
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