On 3/17/24 01:39, Pete Resnick wrote:
The purpose is always (or should be) to build consensus around technically sound solutions to relevant problems. Making it more difficult to track such discussions seems inconsistent with that purpose.So I'd argue to keep the 2-week rule because I think it's about the minimum amount of time that it's reasonable to give people to sync / catch up, but the 2-week rule should apply to all updates.
Except we have already established that the rule is consistently being circumvented (see John's initial message) and is not working for the purpose you describe, and more importantly nobody (the IESG, the chairs) is willing to enforce it in the way that you describe. So now what? Nice to say "keep the rule", but for what purpose? For the artificial deadline function, we can do that without the rule.
Of course, if real consensus [*] around text in a document already exists by f2f meeting time, that's less time needed for discussion of that item in the meeting.
Keith
[*] not, say, consensus by exhaustion, or the appearance of
consensus because people have been blindsided by a late proposal
