+1 In any case, the proposal as I understood it was that the deadline *would* apply to drafts which the secretariat had to examine, just not the rest. I certainly don't agree with giving an unsupportable load to our secretariat before the meetings (and it isn't being proposed by me :) )
-=R On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM, <[email protected]> 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 > > +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. > > All the more so since it just leads people to use informal distribution > methods. I don't recall a case where a chair forbid the discussion of a > draft > distributed this way. > > I recall hearing something once about routing around obstacles... Pity we > don't > internalize such principles fully. > > Ned >
