On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 14:35, Scott Brim wrote: >> On 03/10/13 09:12, Brian Trammell allegedly wrote: >>>> Solve it with better management, not artificial barriers that are >>>> imposed on everyone and that can be trivially routed around, albeit >>>> without the benefits of using the I-D mechanism. >> >>> This seems like something that could be left to the discretion of the >>> chairs on setting the agenda for each WG meeting, as long as there's >>> transparency in the criteria that will be used to decide whether a >>> recently-submitted draft can be discussed on the agenda. >> >> Yes, place the decision in the WGs. Once upon a time in a WG far away >> we did say "You can submit drafts and discuss them on the mailing list >> any time you want, but the agenda for the meeting will be set two weeks >> in advance." > > Please don't. Currently we receive a flood of a few hundred drafts two > weeks before each meeting, which gives time for some triage. I do not > wish to receive a few hundred drafts on the first day of the meeting, > with no time for triage, but that would be the inevitable end-point if > the deadline was abolished. (Unless there has been an unannounced change > in human nature, of course.) > > Brian +1
