On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure that the deadline serves any positive purpose so long as we keep all of the versions anyway. > It certainly is annoying the way it is now and is disruptive to the development process rather than helpful for it. Um, maybe. Another way to look at it is that a deadline, any deadline, helps stop folk procrastinating and actually *submit*. Have a look at the number of submissions just before the cutoffs… W > > -=R > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/26/13 1:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: > > On the one hand, having a cut-off time could help WG chairs make a decision > > as to whether to entertain a discussion on a draft. On the other hand, > > having no cut-off date might mean that drafts are submitted extremely late > > and it makes it more challenging or impossible to prepare an agenda. > > Well, for one thing the IETF does its work on mailing lists, and > meetings support that rather than the other way 'round. For another, > I'm not sure this deadline makes any difference in practice (other > than introducing an inconvenience). We're going to be giving meeting > time to a draft for which there's no revision, because it needs > meeting time. It's on the agenda whether there's a revision or > not. I understand the deadline was introduced to provide incentives > for people to get their stuff in in advance of a meeting. But. > > Melinda > > -- I had no shoes and wept. Then I met a man who had no feet. So I said, "Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?"