--On Monday, 18 October, 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John> "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a > John> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be > approved by the John> appropriate WG Chair before they can > be processed or John> announced. WG Chair approval must > be received by Monday, John> October 11 at 9:00 AM ET." > > John> First of all, this isn't "as always". The rule > requiring John> explicit WG Chair approval is fairly > recent. But, more John> important, we now have a > situation in which WG drafts -- John> presumably the most > important documents for the face to face John> meetings-- > now require formal naming, authorization, and > > I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair > submit the -00 document themselves, as a placeholder for the > actual document. This can be done as soon as the WG believes > that the should exist. > > That gets rid of the back-and-forth between chair, author > and secretariat. It seems to me that this is one of the reasons why discussion of these proposals/plans with the community is important. It is not just a matter of approval of a new rule (although that is important), but the fact that the community can often come up with clever solutions that the Secretariat, or IESG, on their own, might not discover. I don't know if it would be worth the trouble, but "either get WG chair pre-approval a week in advance _or_ the WG Chair must submit the document" would seem to me to be a much more reasonable rule than the current one, which encourages individual-submission naming, followed by reissuing of an identical document under the WG name, which makes documents harder to track. > John> As we continue to discuss problems and issues that > get in the John> way of our getting effective work done, > it seems to me that John> this is a new one that should be > added to the list. > > John> Also, in the context of administrative > reorganization, I would John> find it helpful, and others > might too, to understand where John> this new requirement > came from: > > I would like answers to the same question. > I will say that having the rather early deadline means, as a > submitter that I have to get my work done sooner, and this > leaves *me* more time to read documents before the meeting. But this extra week won't, in practice. If it prevents posting the document with the "draft-ietf-WGNAME" form, it can still be posted as an individual submission. That just makes the documents harder to find and track. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
