On 3/15/24 18:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Can we have a go at why we want these mechanisms in the first place
instead of making arbitrary changes?
As far as I recall, it was originally intended to ensure that in the
face-to-face meeting of each WG, people had all read the same version
of each I-D.
I seem to recall (from sometime back in ancient history, probably the early 1990s) that in the days before web submission (and indeed, before the web existed) and before xml2rfc and automatic document checkers, the secretariat staff once had to do a fair amount of manual processing for each submitted internet-draft (including manually extracting them from received email, and sometimes corresponding with the authors/submitters) and they were pulling all-nighters before face-to-face meetings trying to get the late-submitted drafts processed in time. And I think the two-week deadlines were originally instituted in that timeframe, partly to reduce the load on the secretariat (but probably also on IESG and chairs and maybe other participants also).
I also remember from the days before the 2-week deadline, as an author, pulling some all-nighters trying to get drafts submitted before traveling to the meeting.
One more data point: I remember when some WGs would request two
meeting slots during the week, one early in the week and one on
Thursday or Friday. The WG would discuss the draft at the first
meeting, discuss problems and potential resolutions during that
first meeting. Authors and major collaborators would then meet
privately during the week to revise and resubmit the draft if
they felt they could make progress that would win rough
consensus. The Thursday or Friday meeting used to close the loop
and discuss the changes made during week.
That way, in theory, we could revise a draft twice in a four-month
period rather than just once. And often (not always) this
actually worked.
Keith
