+1
In any case, the proposal as I understood it was that the deadline *would* apply to drafts which the secretariat had to examine, just not the rest.
I certainly don't agree with giving an unsupportable load to our secretariat before the meetings (and it isn't being proposed by me :) )
-=R
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM, <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All the more so since it just leads people to use informal distribution
> 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
+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.
methods. I don't recall a case where a chair forbid the discussion of a draft
distributed this way.
I recall hearing something once about routing around obstacles... Pity we don't
internalize such principles fully.
Ned