--On Saturday, March 16, 2024 07:17 +1000 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Agreed. We really need to have a bit of a general re-think on > what we really want out of these rules instead of (IMO) silly > point-fixes that don't really address the issue. Re-opening > the queue on Sunday is completely counter-productive if the > point was not to have new versions just before the f2f. > (Similarly, the current proposal to remove the I-D expiry > date, which I agree is anachronistic and not serving its > original purpose, is another attempt at a simple point fix > that does not address the original reason those dates existed.) It probably wasn't clear from my original note, but I thing that is what I'm looking for. Put into different terms and incorporating part of Joe's and Mark's note, it does not make much sense to me to cut I-Ds off two weeks in advance and then to make pull requests a few days before the meeting (or to post drafts during the meeting) and then slip them into WG agendas. Similarly, it makes little sense to have at least a nominal rule that WG agendas be posted in advance and then to either decline to enforce that rule or to allow meeting materials that are critical to the agenda to be posted within hours before or even after that WG's session. It may also not make sense to say "documents for a WG session at IETF must be posted two weeks in advance but there are no requirements about ones for interims". I'm not sure what the right answers are to any of the questions implied above, but it is almost certainly time to do enough thinking about the system that the combinations are at least rational and consistent. > Can we have a go at why we want these mechanisms in the first > place instead of making arbitrary changes? Can the IESG > organize that discussion somewhere? Yes. Please. john
