Subject: RE: I-D submission tool draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:56:00 +0300

Pekka,

> > I agree.  While both submission of the document and approval by the chair 
> > are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order.  If I'm not 
> > available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning 
> > from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal.  It should 
> > _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting 
> > than people are.
> 
> I don't see forcing the submitter to wait a problem at all.  It just
> changes the practical process a little bit, that's all.

My biggest concern about this is co-ordinating this around IETF meetings.
For example, I usually take vacations from mid-June to mid-July so sometimes I am
on vacation during the draft cut-off dates.  Trying to get everything
co-ordinated sufficiently would probably cause something to get missed,
which sort of defeats the purpose of scheduling IETF meetings to discuss
active work items.  

John

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:44:39 +0300 (EEST)

> which sort of defeats the purpose of scheduling IETF meetings to discuss

Don't take vacations then.  That's why being a WG chair gives you the
big bucks ;-).

But seriously, unless WG chairs/secretaries coordinate, having long
vacations prior to the meetings is a recipe for disaster.  Maybe this
calls for a slightly different meeting times, or just sacrifices wrt.  
vacations from the chairs and WG participants..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:14:30 +0200

[re-adding tools-discuss]

--On tirsdag, september 14, 2004 08:56:00 +0300 [email-masked] 
wrote:

> Pekka,
>
>> > I agree.  While both submission of the document and approval by the
>> > chair  are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order.
>> > If I'm not  available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a
>> > train returning  from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I
>> > can deal.  It should  _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers
>> > are much better at waiting  than people are.
>>
> For example, I usually take vacations from mid-June to mid-July so
> sometimes I am on vacation during the draft cut-off dates.  Trying to get
> everything co-ordinated sufficiently would probably cause something to
> get missed, which sort of defeats the purpose of scheduling IETF meetings
> to discuss active work items.

John, I think you clearly point out that if something (like approval of an 
-00 draft) is likely to be hung up on a single person, there needs to be 
override procedures in place - that the WG chair can sublet the power to 
the WG secretary, that the AD can approve when the WG chair isn't there; 
the details can be worked out - but we should NOT let ourselves be locked 
down to one specific person having to be chained to his keyboard.

                         Harald