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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 16 March 2024 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30898C14F691 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dmTKCCq_vy5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849D1C14F619 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [202.4.29.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4TxvCw4GFszDCbY; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:20:28 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
Subject: Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6d0c6b07-2fc3-496c-ba66-dc40cbf46df8@dfn.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:20:15 +1000
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <69EE71C9-C42B-49A6-BC0D-508F799DB68E@tzi.org>
References: <7826C4F13FA874CD79459A4B@PSB> <65A7921B-2A05-439A-976C-226560C5E7F4@strayalpha.com> <e0702d8a-cea5-4928-b571-98442ccd4f29@petit-huguenin.org> <6d0c6b07-2fc3-496c-ba66-dc40cbf46df8@dfn.de>
To: Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oZ62zEBYVYsnSsWUmzZgvEuNES0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:20:41 -0000

On 16. Mar 2024, at 15:05, Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de> wrote:
> 
> Since I'm relatively new - what was the "-00 special" that Carsten mentioned?

There was a time when the deadline for -00 drafts was a week (?) before the one for all follow-on drafts.

I forget the rationale — maybe it was that a new thing (a -00) would take longer to digest than an update (-nn where nn > 00).

In any case, the actual change in behavior wasn’t so much that people posted their drafts a week earlier; people just posted a placeholder draft as -00 and had another week to do the -01 that would be the actual input to the meeting.

I think this example serves us as a reminder that it is less important what we are trying to achieve with a change, compared with what the resulting change of behavior will be.  It is not enough to mean good, it is the actual outcome that counts.

Someone (sorry) proposed making the I-D deadline a per-working-group decision.

I can disclose that many of the process rules that we enjoy are actually meant to give leadership (here, the working group chairs) a stick to get some desirable behavior out of the participants, and the creation of a “Sachzwang” (untranslatable German bureaucrat-speak, maybe “force of circumstance”) is one of the best ways to give WG chairs that stick,

Of course, some will ask why working groups should be punished that don’t want to have that deadline.
(First of all, we could actually make it less of an exception to have AD-approved secretariat-posted I-Ds for WGs that deliberately make it part of their process.  I have used this workaround to good effect when there actually was a reason.  Talk to your AD!  Ahead of time.)

But to most of the WG chairs I would say: You are holding it wrong (the stick).

Of course, the chairs can decide to give agenda time to drafts that are on a git forge such as GitHub only (or, worse, in some random personal web space — don’t allow that).
Setting the expectations right is the important thing.
The current times (close 2 weeks before, open 1 day before) are exactly what is needed in a good number of cases, and their consistency helps people who want to do work across WGs.

Communicate what behavior you want from your WG draft authors (“editors”) and from the producers of new stuff. The standard timing will give you the right thing in most of the cases, and your AD is there to help with the exceptions.

Grüße, Carsten