On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/26/2013 11:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/26/2013 11:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Then again, having these deadlines at all is a bit silly.
It just forces authors to "informally distribute" updates directly
on the
list, and cuts off access to work that doesn't need to happen in
sync with
an IETF meeting.
Something like "documents published less than two weeks before a WG
session
cannot be discussed in this session" would be better. Also, "slides
published
less than one week before a WG session cannot be used in this session".
That's fine, though it still puts minor mods in the same class as
complete revisions.
Maybe we need a two-tiered numbering system, e.g., major revs cannot
occur less than two weeks before a meeting where they will be
discussed, but minor mods are OK up to 48 hours in advance.
:-)
You can't bury a recurring-rathole thread like this in the middle of
another thread and expect good fireworks! ;-)
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly. Chairs
should be able to manage what gets discussed at a face-to-face without
an artificial posting moratorium, and it can be done with reasonable
discretion for exceptions. But we have had this conversation many times,
including at the face-to-face plenary, and we've repeatedly heard that
chairs prefer to have this default "no" in place to reduce the number of
arguments they have to have with recalcitrant WG members. And there is
an AD-override of the moratorium, so if you do have good reason to post
an update, it is allowed.
I suggested at one point that a middle ground might be to keep allow
submission to a "holding pen" that would require chair or AD to release
it. It didn't garner a lot of excitement.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478