For that to help, one must also assert that the people who would read the
changes two weeks before the meeting wouldn't read the changes the night
before the meeting, and that they'll remember whatever it is they need to
remember to be a useful active participant.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Warren Kumari <warren(_at_)kumari(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we
keep all of the versions anyway.
It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the
development process rather than helpful for it.
Um, maybe.
Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop
folk procrastinating and actually *submit*.
Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs…
W
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 2/26/13 1:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a
decision
as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft. On the other hand,
having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely
late
and it makes it more challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda.
Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and
meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another,
I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other
than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting
time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs
meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or
not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives
for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But.
Melinda
--
I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said,
"Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?"