On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 02:31:13PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see two solutions: > > 1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at the meeting must > be submitted before the cut-off and that submissions made during meetings > are strictly limited to revisions occurring after and between WG sessions. > [Except in exceptional circumstances with AD approval] > > 2) Eliminate the 2 week cut off completely.
When I first read this, I thought that (1) could make sense. When I started to read Andrew's response, I disagreed with it. After all, the AD can override the block on submissions. Then I got to this: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > I > especially don't want anything more gated on the AD during IETF week. > Chairs have to ensure this rule isn't abused, and if it is then the > right thing to do is complain about WG management, not invent more > rules. ...and I switched. Andrew's right: we aren't well served by a situation that requires AD intervention in this, and we do have to trust the chairs to manage their working groups, including managing the time and content of the sessions. I understand the situation that prompted Phill to suggest this, but I think it's something that needs to be taken up with the chairs. And, yes, that is what happened, in a sense -- it was taken up with the chairs -- and also in a sense, the chairs acknowledged that they allowed something that in this case might have been problematic. I think that's the way to deal with it, albeit with somewhat more circumspection than happened. I'd rather not put rules in place that restrict how the chairs can manage the discussions in their working groups. Most of the time, these late updates are helpful, not harmful. The chairs need to be able to put their judgment to work here. Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
