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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

I agree with you, it should not be allowed, but I think it is important
also the session's chairs/ADs must have a say in such special cases there
may be a need for a presentation or a document that is needed for the
session/WG/Charter. There is always a possibility that presenters don't
present for some reason (causes change of schedule/agenda at the start of
the meeting to be agreed_on/discussed), so the chair is responsible to
manage the session to be useful the most to attendance..

For my understanding the deadline (for conferences and meetings) is to give
time for participants read the documents and also for the author/presenter
to get enough/fair time to present, but also if there is some more time
available/open_mic at the end of meeting, then any one can present any
thing which is needed/maybe_needed by participants.

Best Regards,
AB

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:27 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> For many, many, years we have had a cutoff for posting I-Ds
> about two weeks before an IETF meeting starts.  That cutoff was
> established to give people time to read documents (especially
> because, predictably, many documents would be posted just before
> it), figure out which WG meetings they needed to attend, prepare
> comments, etc.    We are now seeing pull requests that alter
> substantive parts of documents posted on Github within a short
> time before IETF starts and during the window when new or
> revised I-Ds are not allowed without special circumstances and
> specific permission from ADs.
>
> Allowing that seems to contradict, or at least seriously weaken,
> the principle of having documents available well in advance of
> meetings.  If they are announced only to the mailing list of the
> relevant WG(s) (and sometimes not even that widely), it seems to
> me that they impede both WG meeting discussions in which
> everyone has the same starting points and openness to IETF
> participants who have not signed up for the WG mailing list
> (newcomers included).
>
> Is the IESG considering some guidance on this subject or is it
> considered unnecessary?
>
> As an almost-separate question, if the "real" version of an I-D
> that is expected to be discussed in meetings and on mailing list
> is the the draft plus the cumulative effect of pull requests
> (some by other than the listed authors), should that be more
> clear and reflected in the datatracker?
>
> thanks,
>    john
>
>