On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 07:35:35 PM Doug Barton wrote: > On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> 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?
How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting? It was silly I had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting. Scott K
