--On Friday, 01 February, 2008 15:31 -0500 Scott Brim <swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I propose that we eliminate global cutoff dates and let each WG > establish any cutoff dates it needs for its own purposes. > > In general we strive to have the principal forum for > discussion be WG mailing lists as opposed to the physical > meetings themselves. That should be the default case. Most > WGs at least pretend to try to get away from simple >... Scott, Three observations... (1) I think this implies that we wouldn't rely on tools to enforce posting deadlines at all, but would just leave the submission tools functioning year-round. The posting deadlines would then have to do with rules established by a WG as to what they would consider. I see two practical problems with that. One is that we still have some I-Ds posted manually or, as with WG -00 documents, still requiring manual intervention. I suspect it is not realistic to ask the Secretariat to keep that process running at full efficiency right up to IETF, so we might need a "no promises that this will get done if you submit it for manual posting after..." sort of cutoff. The other is that multiple revisions of a document just before IETF could leave people sitting in a meeting room looking at (or having read) different versions of the same document. That would be an annoyance at best, but maybe worse. (2) I think an early cutoff for individual documents that do not directly relate to IETF WG or Standards-track work is useful because it keeps the noise level down for all of us. So a WG-based cutoff might need to be accompanied by a tool-enforced cutoff about most non-WG documents. (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more important to follow discussions than to read every revision of every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen may well work differently than I did (and his results may be better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his balance and that of others working the way he works. To repeat what I said in my first note, I hope we don't need to redesign this on the list. I was very pleased to see Cullen's note and hope it is a sign that the IESG is beginning to discuss the topic. If they announce, after due consideration, a new and better-balanced plan in Philadelphia, I expect to be happy about it and consider it an improvement regardless of its details. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf