Stepping back a few days...
Scott W Brim wrote:
The reason we have the "deadline" is to protect the Secretariat from
having to be heroes. However, best would be if the need for such
protection didn't arise.
Instead of assuming that things to be discussed in the meetings will
be written just before the meeting, and creating complexity and
bureaucracy around that assumption, institute a policy that nothing
*will* be discussed in the meeting unless it has already been
discussed on the mailing list and the WG has failed to reach agreement
on the issue (note this is about issues, not documents).
This is clearly an approach that any WG chair can take if they want,
and it is almost the same as the general guideline we already
have that meetings should be to discuss issues, not to hear talks.
Sounds like input to draft-hoffman-taobis
This will
reduce the number of drafts which must get out just before the meeting
to only those which capture the result of ongoing discussion. The
others won't get discussed anyway. OK, I'm optimistic,
I think you are, a little.
but I see all
this discussion of mechanisms to elaborate a situation we don't want
to be in in the first place.
And that the current deadlines were, in fact, put in place to avoid.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf