In message <9D9C9EE8-290D-4A80-9061-CC79A5098A95(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>, "Fred
Baker (fred)" writes:
On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:15 PM, marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org wrote:
Why force people to use the exception mechanisms when a little bit of
proactive action can avoid the issue altogether?
What specifically are you asking? Are you asking the IESG to be
proactive, or the working group chair, or the author(s)? In what specific
way would you like people to be proactive?
The last reminder I got had a 9 days until the draft expired. The
reminder that triggered this thread had 1.x days and less time than
that to submit before the embargo.
Expires: 2015-10-20 (in 19 hours, 17 minutes)
That all reminders that would be sent out in the 9 days upto the
submissing embargo and all reminders that would be sent during the
submission embargo be brought forward to the T-9 days.
That the start and end times of the current/next submission embargo
be in the reminder emails.
The allows all authors 9 days in which to submit a update after the
reminder without encountering a embargo period. It also allows
authors to plan their work schedule without having to go and lookup
when the next embargo period starts.
Getting a reminder, doing the work, then not being able to submit
it because you ran into the embargo period kind of defeats the
purpose of the reminder.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org