+1 More flexibility, more chair accountability for the decisions they make about that flexibility, fewer rules and fewer things that require AD involvement except on appeal and other types of high-level discussions about whether particular WGs are being managed properly. john --On Monday, August 01, 2011 15:43 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 02:31:13PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker > wrote: >> I suggest that this is a sub-optimal state of affairs. I see >> two solutions: >> >> 1) Codify the requirement that materials to be discussed at >> the meeting must be submitted before the cut-off and that >> submissions made during meetings are strictly limited to >> revisions occurring after and between WG sessions. [Except in >> exceptional circumstances with AD approval] >> >> 2) Eliminate the 2 week cut off completely. > > When I first read this, I thought that (1) could make sense. > When I started to read Andrew's response, I disagreed with it. > After all, the AD can override the block on submissions. > > Then I got to this: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Andrew Sullivan > <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I >> especially don't want anything more gated on the AD during >> IETF week. Chairs have to ensure this rule isn't abused, and >> if it is then the right thing to do is complain about WG >> management, not invent more rules. > > ...and I switched. Andrew's right: we aren't well served by a > situation that requires AD intervention in this, and we do > have to trust the chairs to manage their working groups, > including managing the time and content of the sessions. > > I understand the situation that prompted Phill to suggest > this, but I think it's something that needs to be taken up > with the chairs. And, yes, that is what happened, in a sense > -- it was taken up with the chairs -- and also in a sense, the > chairs acknowledged that they allowed something that in this > case might have been problematic. > > I think that's the way to deal with it, albeit with somewhat > more circumspection than happened. I'd rather not put rules > in place that restrict how the chairs can manage the > discussions in their working groups. Most of the time, these > late updates are helpful, not harmful. The chairs need to be > able to put their judgment to work here. > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf