Several years ago, when submitting drafts became automated, we used to have a hard cut-off and be unable to submit new drafts until after IETF.
That caused issues if discussions caused the desire to change/update drafts during the meeting, then there was no way of having an easily accessible version. The current situation is a compromise where drafts can be updated during the meeting - and WG chairs have discretion. I think we've tweaked this one enough - not all WGs are the same. Alia On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/2/11 8:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> Either don't have a cutoff at all or make it a requirement that all >> materials be submitted in advance of the meeting. >> > > Personally, I think chairs should have the discretion to allow or disallow > discussion of documents submitted at any time, that they should be tougher > about what they disallow, and that they should face the wrath of their WG > members and their AD if they aren't. Right now, we have a deadline, but also > allow for special dispensation to let drafts through. If chairs feel that > they need *some* deadline written down somewhere in order to push back on > things, I have an alternate suggestion: > > Right now, all -00 submissions of WG drafts are gated on chair approval (I > believe in an automated fashion). We could simply make the tool gate *all* > WG submissions from some time before the meeting through the meeting week. > That way, chairs can decide whether they will enforce the deadline and not > let the draft through, or make exceptions and let the drafts through. See > above statement regarding "wrath" if the chairs abuse this authority in > either direction. > > (If we had the resources, we could make the tool settable on a per-WG > basis: One chair could say, "I want to gate all drafts", another could say, > "I want to gate none", and others could put in a date range for gating.) > > Again, I don't think there needs to be a cutoff or a gating function. > Chairs already have the authority to tell folks to go jump in a lake. But > I'm not against a tool if chairs feel like they need some sort of "official" > pushback mechanism. > > pr > > -- > Pete > Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.**com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/> > > > Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 > > ______________________________**_________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf> >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
