> Ned, > While it seems otherwise, I don't think our suggestions are > really inconsistent. Let me summarize a way to combine the > radical and the more radical: > (1) Assume, right now and restoring an historical > principle, that an AD has the right and obligation to > waive the cutoff in situations that AD considers that it > is important enough to the process to just get a draft > posted to do so. I think we are agreed about that. To the extent it relaxes the rules and helps as an interim measure, sure. But we need to keep in mind that every cycle we take away from ADs to do this sort of thing is time that could better be spent on something that's actually useful. > (2) As soon as convenient, initiate a discussion about > updating the posting cutoff rules so that they are > consistent with today's realities. I hope that the IESG > can lead that discussion, or find someone to lead it, > and that we can have a new plan in place well before > Minneapolis (it is too late to implement anything for > Dublin anyway). It would be a shame to have to initiate > a formal process experiment for this, but that option is > available too if the IESG doesn't feel like it wants to > take the lead but is receptive to a proposal for change. > I think it makes less difference whether I'm right and > _some_ sort of nominal cutoff is a good idea or you (and > maybe Spencer) are and we should just do away with the > cutoff than that, to paraphrase Scott Brim, we don't > [continue] to treat decade-old rules that have been > overtaken by events as dogma or Received Wisdom. Yes, on this we agree. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf