>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 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.
Andrew> Speaking as a WG chair but only for myself, I am opposed to either of
Andrew> these two options.
Andrew> (1) makes it impossible for Chairs to say, "We had a really good
Andrew> discussion between the cut-off and the queue re-opening. The editors
Andrew> think they got it; please check the new text against the
Andrew> discussion
Well, if the discussion (on the mailing list) was so good, then the
number of changes to the document should be very precise, and should of
course, be in an email on the mailing list, right?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf