Since I started this thread... --On Saturday, March 16, 2024 19:17 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/16/24 17:20, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> The current times (close 2 weeks before, open 1 day before) >> are exactly what is needed in a good number of cases, and >> their consistency helps people who want to do work across WGs. > > Nothing's perfect, but IMO the current 2 week deadlines are a > good compromise most of the time. I agree. Two weeks is about right and, at least last I checked, we had procedures for ADs to make exceptions. I assume that, if we needed exception procedures for other streams, we could probably make them up in a hurry (if they don't already exist without my noticing). The question that started the thread is whether other mechanism of getting documents posted --other than, e.g., mailing list discussions-- frustrate the intent of that two week limit and, if so whether they are reasonable. I had intended to open up, and ask for community consideration of, the much broader set of questions and was not asking about localized patches. Pete clarified that point and said what I should have said more explicitly -- that we need to look at the whole collection of interrelated issues rather than applying isolated small patches. I would add that we should not get distracted by possible patches to the point of losing sight of that collection of issues. I don't know that it is what either Keith or Carsten intended, but a discussion of any of whether the cutoff should be two weeks before the meetings start, what "starts" means for that purpose, whether it should be 14 days, 20 or 10 days, one day, some other number, or abolished entirely would be, IMO, just the sort of distraction from the larger issues that I think Pete and I are concerned about. So, btw and IMO are discussions on the tools list about ways to make Github more or less efficient for document review and whether it is time to prohibit some I-D preparation tools or formats. They are probably all part of the larger set of questions but, like others of those questions, they raise important policy questions including, again IMO, just what they IETF means when we talk about being open, welcoming, transparent, etc., and what we all mean when we say that something represents IETF community consensus. > I'm less sure about opening submission to new drafts one day > before a meeting. I might prefer that they be opened again the > day after the meeting closes. Again, part of the broader problem (with interactions with other parts), as are the questions of when WGs are expected (or required) to firm up agendas and organize and post meeting materials. best, john
