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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/15/24 18:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> Can we have a go at why we want these mechanisms in the first place
>> instead of making arbitrary changes?
>
> As far as I recall, it was originally intended to ensure that in the
> face-to-face meeting of each WG, people had all read the same version
> of each I-D.

I seem to recall (from sometime back in ancient history, probably the 
early 1990s) that in the days before web submission (and indeed, before 
the web existed) and before xml2rfc and automatic document checkers, the 
secretariat staff once had to do a fair amount of manual processing for 
each submitted internet-draft (including manually extracting them from 
received email, and sometimes corresponding with the authors/submitters) 
and they were pulling all-nighters before face-to-face meetings trying 
to get the late-submitted drafts processed in time.   And I think the 
two-week deadlines were originally instituted in that timeframe, partly 
to reduce the load on the secretariat (but probably also on IESG and 
chairs and maybe other participants also).

I also remember from the days before the 2-week deadline, as an author, 
pulling some all-nighters trying to get drafts submitted before 
traveling to the meeting.

One more data point: I remember when some WGs would request two meeting 
slots during the week, one early in the week and one on Thursday or 
Friday.  The WG would discuss the draft at the first meeting, discuss 
problems and potential resolutions during that first meeting.   Authors 
and major collaborators would then meet privately during  the week  to 
revise and resubmit the draft if they felt they could make progress that 
would win rough consensus.  The Thursday or Friday meeting used to close 
the loop and discuss the changes made during week.

That way, in theory, we could revise a draft twice in a four-month 
period rather than just once.   And often (not always) this actually worked.

Keith