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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Agreed. We really need to have a bit of a general re-think on what we 
really want out of these rules instead of (IMO) silly point-fixes that 
don't really address the issue. Re-opening the queue on Sunday is 
completely counter-productive if the point was not to have new versions 
just before the f2f. (Similarly, the current proposal to remove the I-D 
expiry date, which I agree is anachronistic and not serving its original 
purpose, is another attempt at a simple point fix that does not address 
the original reason those dates existed.)

Can we have a go at why we want these mechanisms in the first place 
instead of making arbitrary changes? Can the IESG organize that 
discussion somewhere?

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

On 16 Mar 2024, at 6:37, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

> On 3/15/24 1:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> FWIW, opening the queue the week of the IETF only means that updates 
>> are released during the IETF itself, rather than up to 2 weeks 
>> earlier.
>>
>> That, coupled with other workarounds (posting drafts to mailing lists 
>> or other download areas) suggests that the 2-week rule doesn’t 
>> really accomplish much.
>>
>> IMO, WG chairs can just enforce this by saying that issues not placed 
>> in docs before that date will not be discussed. Locking the posting 
>> mechanism is just a hurdle to jump.
>
> Yes.
>
> 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).
>
>>
>> Joe
>> —
>> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>> www.strayalpha.com
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 12:26 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: [e-mail]
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug