--On Sunday, March 24, 2024 12:23 +1000 Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As the wg chair of a WG which has never met at an IETF, and
> thus the two week freeze serves no purpose for this *WG*, I am
> in favour of the two week freeze. Why? Because many of us
> participate in more than one WG. Given that the queue now
> (since a few years) opens on Saturday morning rather than
> Monday morning, it provides a useful and reasonable deadline
> which authors can work with. (I'm agnostic about an earlier
> deadline for -00)
>
> In one or two cases, the freeze has been annoying to a document
> which was at the IESG, but the AD override worked fine for
> that, and the AD was in fact completely in the loop.
FWIW, Michael, the "participate in more than one WG" point is a
large portion of the point I've been trying to make.
The other question I would ask is why that WG has never met at
an IETF meeting? Would you and the participants not find value
in possible participation from those are are not heavily
involved or at least already on your mailing list? Do you not
see that possible exposure of your work to more of the community
as worth the trouble? That your work is so specialized that
other IETF participants are unlikely to be interested? Or
something else?
john
john
