You have two choices with the current model: 1) If the document is critical for WG progress, then talk to your WG chairs and see if they are willing to contact the secretariat to let the document through. You do need a very compelling reason to do this, so it shouldn't be done as a rule. 2) Submit the document the Monday of the meeting week when the submission process is re-opened. If one looks at the volume of documents that many need to read before meetings, if everyone waited until the few days before the meetings to submit, then our meetings would be even less effective. How many could read all the pages of the WG documents that they are interested in a few days? I don't recall the number right off, but in the past someone created a file with all the RAI area drafts - it was a crazy number and even for a two week period, it was humanly impossible to read all the drafts unless you speed read (and miss information) and are reading 24 hrs/day. Regards, Mary. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 07:35:35 PM Doug Barton wrote: >> On 02/26/2013 02:49 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> > On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> But more seriously: I agree with you both. The deadline is silly. >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > The deadline originated because the secretariat needed time to post all of >> > those drafts (by hand) before the meeting. The notion of an automated >> > tool that blocks submissions for two weeks before the meeting is just >> > silly. >> -1 >> >> There are a non-trivial number of people who are intensely busy in the >> weeks leading up to a meeting, with a high degree of overlap with the >> set of people we want to be able to actually read the drafts prior to >> the face to face meeting of the WG. The same argument applies, although >> to a somewhat lesser extent, to being able to post for groups that are >> not meeting. >> >> Is a few weeks where people cannot post what they want, when they want >> to; in order for the larger populace of the IETF to be able to focus on >> the activity in and around the meeting REALLY that much of a burden? > > How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting? It was silly I > had to rush to post a draft on Monday for a WG that's not meeting. > > Scott K