Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community

[Jan-Frederik Rieckers <[e-mail]>]

On 16.03.24 06:37, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> Another related issue is sending slides largely ahead of time, but the chair waits the last minute to post them, thus depriving people of the time to ponder questions and comments.  I just cancelled my presentation when that happened to me.  Conversely, I probably should say on the mic that I would have commented or asked questions on a presentation, but there was not enough time to think about it.  But it could be worse: slides could be posted after the presentation (it happened at least once).
Just to add another thing to the discussion:

Especially for WG meetings where I'm not a constant participant, but 
mostly an interested observer, it helps a lot if the meeting materials 
include a link to the drafts AND have the datatracker state as well.

Naturally the presentations are not uploaded weeks before, and chairs 
need to ask for agenda items before they can post an agenda.
But even before a draft agenda is posted, it would be nice if the chairs 
were to include the drafts that should be discussed.

Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials, there seem to 
be a lot of WGs that don't do that.
A draft could be added the moment the chairs get a request for a 
presentation slot, so people can start reading the draft without knowing 
the agenda (and people like me can scroll through the materials page and 
look for any draft names that sound interesting, without having to open 
the agenda for each WG)

A nice side-effect is that in the draft history, every addition to a WG 
session is recorded, so if someone wants to research on a specific 
draft, i.e. what discussion items were raised, they can easily do so.



But on the topic of the pre-meeting posting deadlines, I can say that I 
personally benefit from the deadline, I'm posting notoriously 
last-weekend-before-deadline.
I agree with most of the statements made previously, that it is good to 
have time to read the spec, without having to "fear" that the spec 
changes while reading.
But again, this is different depending on the WG, if a WG decides to do 
most of their work on Github, the posting of a new I-D version may 
become something that is done irregularly, and the WG discussion will be 
about the open Github issues. If someone only read the draft in the 
datatracker, but the Github version is 10 steps ahead, this is frustrating.


I think it would be good to have some common understanding of the 
different processes, and - to not artificially raise the bar for 
newcomers - document to the best of our abilities, where the main work 
is done for each working group.



Since I'm relatively new - what was the "-00 special" that Carsten 
mentioned?


Cheers,
Janfred

-- 
Herr Jan-Frederik Rieckers
Security, Trust & Identity Services

E-Mail: [e-mail] | Fon: [phone] | Fax: [phone]
Pronomen: er/sein | Pronouns: he/him
__________________________________________________________________________________

DFN - Deutsches Forschungsnetz | German National Research and Education 
Network
Verein zur Förderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.
Alexanderplatz 1 | 10178 Berlin
https://www.dfn.de

Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wesner | Prof. Dr. Helmut Reiser | 
Christian Zens
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Christian Grimm | Jochem Pattloch
VR AG Charlottenburg 7729B | USt.-ID. DE 136623822