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.
-=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 > >
