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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/17/24 01:39, Pete Resnick wrote:

>> 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. 
The purpose is always (or should be) to build consensus around 
technically sound solutions to relevant problems.   Making it more 
difficult to track such discussions seems inconsistent with that purpose.

Of course, if real consensus [*]  around text in a document already 
exists by f2f meeting time, that's less time needed for discussion of 
that item in the meeting.

Keith

[*] not, say, consensus by exhaustion, or the appearance of consensus 
because people have been blindsided by a late proposal