On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:10:39AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> If I understand correctly, you want to retain a deadline, but give the wg
> chair authority to override it. This certainly is reasonable, but I think
> it is not practical because it adds administrative overhead (and probably
> delay) in the Internet-Drafts processing mechanism.
>
> A simpler rule is that the working group gets to decide its deadlines and
> what will be discussed at the meeting. (All of this is predicated on
> moving towards fully automated I-D issuance.)
If I understand the two choices you present are:
1) the wg has to decide to overrule a default deadline;
2) the wg has to decide on all of its own deadlines.
It seems to me (granted I have limited experience) that the administrative
overhead is actually higher in the second case -- frequently it is simplifies
things to just have a default case.
Kent
--
Kent Crispin
kent@xxxxxxxxx p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649
kent@xxxxxxxxxxxx SIP: 81202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf