On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon <grm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we >> keep all of the versions anyway. >> It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the >> development process rather than helpful for it. > > Um, maybe. > > Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk > procrastinating and actually *submit*. > > Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs… [MB] I agree. The deadline is what pushes the vast majority to get work done. WG chairs to have discretion and they can ask the secretariat to post something after the deadline. I believe that's more than sufficient. As Melinda noted in another email work should happen on the mailing list. If the documents aren't out earlier, then there is no time to discuss on the mailing list. Without mailing list discussion or folks even having read drafts, the WG time is not nearly as effective in my experience and I honestly think that's one reason it takes IETF so *many* cycles to get work done.
In the RAI area, we've had a process in place that has earlier deadlines that REQUIRE wg discussion or the documents do NOT get agenda time. That has proven fairly effective We have made the deadlines less restrictive over the past year and we seem to have reached a good steady state in the process. If anyone wants to debate the merits of that process, please do so on the RAI area list as we are always looking to improve. The nature of this WG is different, of course. For the other WG I chair, the group has been pretty good about getting documents updated outside the deadlines. But, that's because we have regularly design team meetings that introduce deadlines for work to get out for mailing list discussion, which gets back to the basic fact that many procrastinate or get distracted with other things and unless there's a deadline, the work will not get done in a timely manner. [/MB] > > W > >> >> -=R >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> On 2/26/13 1:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: >> > On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a decision >> > as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft. On the other hand, >> > having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely late >> > and it makes it more challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. >> >> Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and >> meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, >> I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other >> than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting >> time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs >> meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or >> not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives >> for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. >> >> Melinda >> >> > > -- > I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said, "Hey > man, got any shoes you're not using?" > >
