At Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:11 -0500, Scott Brim wrote: > > Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote, On 12/12/08 2:26 PM: > > At Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:15:23 +0100, > > Julian Reschke wrote: > >> I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda > >> submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in > >> time, the meeting shouldn't take place. > > > > +1. > > > > I find it incredibly frustrating to be a week out from IETF and > > not know what drafts I need to read. > > They should be the ones that people have been arguing about for a month > before that, so that it has become clear they need to be discussed in > the meeting. Perhaps so, but in most WGs I am involved in, plenty of new drafts show just before the meeting and people ask for discussion time, and then sometimes people don't show, so in practice trying to follow this algorithm gets you a very inaccurate list. Moreover, I (and others) use programmatic tools to extract the list of drafts to review and then go back and review the mailing list as necessary. So, all this works far better if the agenda is actually accurate. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf