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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 17 Mar 2024, at 14:13, Keith Moore wrote:

> IMO the 2-week (or whatever) rule should apply to EVERY way of 
> updating a document, including git updates.   (maybe not pull 
> requests, since those are just suggestions, after all.)

What about WG discussions on the mailing list that come to consensus and 
agreed text to go with it? Should that be forbidden?

> So I'd argue to keep the 2-week rule because I think it's about the 
> minimum amount of time that it's reasonable to give people to sync / 
> catch up, but the 2-week rule should apply to all updates.

Except we have already established that the rule is consistently being 
circumvented (see John's initial message) and is not working for the 
purpose you describe, and more importantly nobody (the IESG, the chairs) 
is willing to enforce it in the way that you describe. So now what? Nice 
to say "keep the rule", but for what purpose? For the artificial 
deadline function, we can do that without the rule.

> I don't know that the tools need to enforce this rule, though.

Well, with that I certainly agree.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best