OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1 week in advance?
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't normative. Even when they're not about a draft in particular, the slides are not self-standing documents. They're merely to help with discussion. Not getting the slides at all is a different matter - but 7 days in advance is counter-productive. They should be as up-to-date as practical, to take into account mailing list discussions. [or at least that's how I justify my same-day, ultra-fresh slides] If you need to have them on the website 7 days in advance, you really need to get a faster Internet connection. ;) -hadriel On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:20 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > --On Sunday, August 04, 2013 07:27 -0400 Michael Richardson > <m...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > >> ... >>> * On several occasions this week, slides were uploaded >>> on a just-in-time basis (or an hour or so after that). >> >> Agreed. I'd like to have this as a very clear IETF-wide >> policy. No slides 1 week before hand, no time allocation. > > I had two different WG chairs (from two different WGs) tell me > this week that their WGs really needed the presentations and > discussion to move forward and they therefore couldn't do > anything other than let things progress when they didn't get the > slides and get them posted before the session started. This is > part of what I mean by the community not [yet] taking remote > participation seriously. If having the slides in advance is as > important to remote participants as Michael and I believe, then > the community has to decide that late slides are simply > unacceptable behavior except in the most unusual circumstances, > with "unacceptable" being viewed at a level that justifies > finding replacements for document authors and even WG chairs. > > I also note that the 1 week cutoff that Michael suggests would, > in most cases, eliminate "had no choice without impeding WG > progress" as an excuse. A week in advance of the meeting, there > should be time, if necessary to find someone else to organize > the presentation or discussion (and to prepare and post late > slides that are still posted before the meeting if needed). If > it is necessary to go ahead without the slides, it is time to > get a warning to that effect and maybe an outline of the issues > to be discussed into the agenda. If the WG's position is that > slides 12 or 24 hours before the WG's session are acceptable, > then the odds are high that one glitch or another will trigger a > "well, there are no slides posted but they are available in the > room and the discussion is important" decision. > > Again, I think the real question is whether we, as a community, > are serious about effective remote participation; serious enough > to back a WG chair who calls off a presentation or replaces a > document author, or an AD who replaces a WG chair, for not > getting with the program. > > best, > john >
