I'm doing a lot of work in regards to, creating working code, benchmarking,
testing, writing specs and prose, writing emails, wash, rinse, repeat, and
yes, the deadline is interfering with the publishing of the work-product of
all of that and likely the progress of the group.
... and what is the benefit of the arbitrary 2-weeks-before deadline?
Arguably so people can read the drafts, yes I understand that, yet if the
active participants don't have time to read it, then it won't get time for
discussion at the meeting. If they did, then it will be discussed, and if
people feel that it wasn't presented early enough, then they say so on the
various venues available, not limited simply to stating so at the
microphone.
-=R
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
wrote:
On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly.
+1
The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all
of those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated
tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just silly.
-1
There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the
weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the set
of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to the face
to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although to a
somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are not
meeting.
Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want to;
in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on the
activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden?
Doug