Subject: Draft deadline exception processing

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:21:47 -0500

Dear chairs,

As you probably know, it is currently possible to ask an AD to send an 
email to the secretariat to make an exception to the two week submission 
cut-off before IETF meetings and let a draft through. This might be 
reasonable in cases where a WG has already discussed the changes and 
simply want to put a stake in the ground, or in cases where a draft is 
not going to be discussed at the IETF meeting at all. The IESG has been 
discussing the two week deadline in general, everything from lifting the 
moratorium completely to changes to the submission tool to allow ADs 
and/or chairs to allow the drafts through on an exception basis. We're 
considering whether a good first step is to simply allow chairs 
themselves to email the exception to the secretariat. This would allow 
you to make the decision without checking with an AD first. However, we 
were concerned that maybe some of you relied on the current procedures 
to push back on document authors by being able to say, "Sorry, you'll 
have to ask the AD whether they're willing to make an exception."

We'd like your feedback: Would you like the ability to make exceptions 
yourselves by emailing the secretariat, or do you prefer the current 
state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

pr - for the IESG

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:30:02 -0400

On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
...
> We'd like your feedback: Would you like the ability to make exceptions yourselves by emailing the secretariat, or do you prefer the current state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

I'm OK with saying "no" myself.  Then again I have no problem with the status quo.

--John

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:30:09 -0400

On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> Dear chairs,
> 
> As you probably know, it is currently possible to ask an AD to send an email to the secretariat to make an exception to the two week submission cut-off before IETF meetings and let a draft through. This might be reasonable in cases where a WG has already discussed the changes and simply want to put a stake in the ground, or in cases where a draft is not going to be discussed at the IETF meeting at all. The IESG has been discussing the two week deadline in general, everything from lifting the moratorium completely to changes to the submission tool to allow ADs and/or chairs to allow the drafts through on an exception basis. We're considering whether a good first step is to simply allow chairs themselves to email the exception to the secretariat. This would allow you to make the decision without checking with an AD first. However, we were concerned that maybe some of you relied on the current procedures to push back on document authors by being able to say, "Sorry, you'll have to ask the AD whether they're willing to make an exception."
> 

Personally I think being able to make the exception myself is fine -- if you are going to do this chairing gig you should be willing to take a stand every now and then (said by a wimp who hates confrontation....)

W

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:33:38 -0500

On 08/16/2011 03:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
[...]
> We'd like your feedback: Would you like the ability to make
> exceptions yourselves by emailing the secretariat,

No.

> or do you prefer the current state of affairs where only the ADs can
> approve the exceptions?

Yes, in fact I was not even aware that the ADs --- as powerful as
they are --- could approve exceptions.

Generally, it is good to have a strict and uniform cutoff date for all
authors, least a chair is viewed of demonstrating favouritism by
allowing an exception to his or her favourite authors.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:32:17 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:30 PM
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: 'WG Chairs'
> Subject: Re: Draft deadline exception processing
> 
> > exceptions yourselves by emailing the secretariat, or do you prefer the
> > current state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?
> 
> Personally I think being able to make the exception myself is fine --
> if you are going to do this chairing gig you should be willing to take
> a stand every now and then (said by a wimp who hates confrontation....)

I agree.  We can always revert if somehow this process change gets abused or fails or something, but it seems to be something we can reasonably take off the ADs' responsibility list.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:58:31 -0700

> I agree.  We can always revert if somehow this process change gets abused or fails or something, but it seems to be something we can reasonably take off the ADs' responsibility list.

Personally, I can agree with both of the above - I have no problem with the WG chair having the authority to let a draft in that misses the deadline. It seems like there is a lot on the AD's plate right now that we can help lift.

That said, as a working group chair, I am pushing for people to get their drafts in earlier, if anything, and refusing people discussion slots where I haven't seen uptake on the list. I'd like people to come to the meeting having read the drafts. Compressing *that* time seems suboptimal to me - we don't get mailing list discussion ("I'll just give my comments verbally") and we don't get time to read ourselves in.

And when folks really just blew the deadline and we want to make this kind of exception, it's not unusual to see them post it elsewhere and at the IETF site after the meeting. That works.

If anything, I would not change the deadlines. I would change the tool to permit someone to upload a draft during the hiatus period (which I would extend to the end of the IETF week, not the beginning), and post it in the directory at that time. I think it should tell them at the beginning of their processing that this is what's going to happen, in case they'd rather do something different, but if they accept, do it.

If the IETF drops the deadlines or brings them significantly closer to the meeting, I will likely impose one in my working group. Air time is achievable if and only if I see supporting mailing list discussion AND the draft is posted early enough to allow it to be read prior to the meeting.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:04:33 +0200

[...]

> allowing an exception to his or her favourite authors.

I expect that WGs will over time develop different interpretations of
how strict the deadline really is and this will lead to confusion for
those active in different WGs. Unless the ADs are really overloaded
dealing with deadline exceptions, I do not really see a benefit of
delegating this responsibility to the WG chairs because I believe the
two weeks deadline is at the end a good thing.

Of course, people sometimes miss the deadline but there have always
been ways to deal with it (sending an ID to the mailing list, sending
a pointer to some location where the updated document can be found to
the mailing list, uploading the ID on Monday morning of the meeting
week - something funny by itself, ...).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:13:18 +0000

Personally I find the two-week deadline really counterproductive, since it means that there's a huge glut of new drafts on the same day, and nobody has time to read that many drafts anyway.   I always assumed that the two-week cutoff was for the benefit of the RFC editor staff in some way, not to give people time to read drafts before the meeting.   I don't think it accomplishes that.

So from my perspective, anything you do to loosen it up is good.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:18:55 +0000

On Aug 16, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
That said, as a working group chair, I am pushing for people to get their drafts in earlier, if anything, and refusing people discussion slots where I haven't seen uptake on the list. I'd like people to come to the meeting having read the drafts. Compressing *that* time seems suboptimal to me - we don't get mailing list discussion ("I'll just give my comments verbally") and we don't get time to read ourselves in.

I think that this is a much more productive way to deal with the problem.   So much so that I'm thinking I might propose that John and I do it for the next IETF.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:00:52 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 15:21 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear chairs,
> 
> As you probably know, it is currently possible to ask an AD to
> send an email to the secretariat to make an exception to the
> two week submission cut-off before IETF meetings and let a
>...
> exceptions yourselves by emailing the secretariat, or do you
> prefer the current state of affairs where only the ADs can
> approve the exceptions?

Pete,

This is so obvious to me that I'm going to try being succinct
and apologize if it sounds rude:

(1) It would be good to establish the principle that two weeks
(or whatever number the IESG prefers) is the norm and that
anything shorter really is an exception.

(2) Any WG Chair who cannot be relied upon to exercise
discretion in these situations is inappropriate for the role and
should be fired.  Similarly, any WG Chair who feels a need to
hide behind an AD isn't ready for the job and should be disposed
of until her or she gets ready.

(3) Anyone who contemplates abusing whatever mechanism is
established should be cautioned, proactively, that any appeal
based on a WG decision made during a meeting for which people
did not have adequate time to prepare would almost certainly be
upheld, especially given the already-fragile status of decisions
made at meetings.

     john

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:27:00 +0100

Pete Resnick wrote:

> email to the secretariat to make an exception to the two week 
> submission cut-off before IETF meetings and let a draft through. This 
> might be reasonable in cases where a WG has already discussed the 
> changes and simply want to put a stake in the ground, or in cases 
> where a draft is not going to be discussed at the IETF meeting at all. 
> The IESG has been discussing the two week deadline in general, 
> everything from lifting the moratorium completely to changes to the 
> submission tool to allow ADs and/or chairs to allow the drafts through 
> on an exception basis. We're considering whether a good first step is 
> to simply allow chairs themselves to email the exception to the 
> secretariat. This would allow you to make the decision without 
> checking with an AD first. However, we were concerned that maybe some 
> of you relied on the current procedures to push back on document 
> authors by being able to say, "Sorry, you'll have to ask the AD 
> whether they're willing to make an exception."
>

I have no problems asking my AD for an exception. But then again, I 
never had a reason to ask for an exception anyway.

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:24:48 -0400

At 3:21 PM -0500 8/16/11, Pete Resnick wrote:
>exceptions yourselves by emailing the secretariat, or do you prefer 
>the current state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the 
>exceptions?

I am comfortable with the current rule. An ability for a WG chair to 
make an exception seems OK, but I don't feel strongly in favor.

I would like to see additional screening to prevent what I might call 
"skeletal" I-Ds, being submitted, especially to meet the 00 deadline. 
I've seen a few examples recently where the I-D is only 3-5 pages 
long because it contains an abstract and all the needed boilerplate, 
but is otherwise content-free.  This is an abuse of the system.

Steve

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:08:43 -0500

At 03:21 PM 8/16/2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
>Dear chairs,
>
>As you probably know, it is currently possible to ask an AD to send 
>an email to the secretariat to make an exception to the two week 
>submission cut-off before IETF meetings and let a draft through. 
>This might be reasonable in cases where a WG has already discussed 
>the changes and simply want to put a stake in the ground, or in 
>cases where a draft is not going to be discussed at the IETF meeting 
>at all. The IESG has been discussing the two week deadline in 
>general, everything from lifting the moratorium completely to 
>changes to the submission tool to allow ADs and/or chairs to allow 
>the drafts through on an exception basis. We're considering whether 
>a good first step is to simply allow chairs themselves to email the 
>exception to the secretariat. This would allow you to make the 
>decision without checking with an AD first. However, we were 
>concerned that maybe some of you relied on the current procedures to 
>push back on document authors by being able to say, "Sorry, you'll 
>the current state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

I would prefer the ability to have WGs make exceptions. As stated 
elsewhere, anyone abusing this should be fired. I have no problems 
saying "no, you missed the deadline. You cannot present anyway." That 
said, there's another use-case - the IDs in IESG review that could be 
published if an exception were allowed. It's far easier to have the 
chairs provide this than to track down an AD. Some authors/editors 
lose momentum writing when they hit a deadline, and find it hard to 
get back in the saddle with an ID once the meeting is over. I've 
experienced a month or more of wasted time that could be avoided - 
even in the IDs I'm editor of - so I'm guilty of this too.

James

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:18:44 +0200

> state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

I've never used this before and should there be a workload problem for
the ADs already, we're probably talking about something else but exceptions.

Assuming the rule is relaxed for WG documents only and every chair can
only "sponsor" their own wg's drafts, no objection but at the same time
no pressing need.  In any case, an update on Thursday before the meeting
is usually better than on Monday morning when the submission prohibitions falls.

-Peter

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:43:25 +0200

I'd keep the two week deadline (and basically I agree with all Fred Baker's comments in this area).

We probably do need to somehow get across that the real deadline for use of the draft in the face to face meeting is in time to promote some discussion on the list that merits some meeting time discussion.

Generally, in the WGs I've been involved in, no discussion on the list prior to the meeting invariably puts you way down the agenda pecking order, and either means you drop off the end or get one slide presented by the chairs in the status summary that at the most says "Read this draft and comment; it is important because..."

Regards

Keith

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: 16 August 2011 22:19
To: Fred Baker
Cc: Pete Resnick; WG Chairs
Subject: Re: Draft deadline exception processing

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:19:59 -0400

> yourselves by emailing the secretariat, or do you prefer the current state
> of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

You have "hired" us as managers; allow us to manage.

My opinion, in general, is that the only things that should *require*
AD intervention are things that require it by process rules (the IESG
or the responsible AD must approve them, according to process) and
things that would be awkward/difficult/confusing to undo if the WG
chair got it wrong.

I had that opinion about the charter milestone questions, and I have
it about this.  As a chair, I can and do set deadlines that are
stricter than the overall ones, when that's necessary.  I require any
meeting materials to get to me well in advance of the scheduled
session, under threat of removal from the agenda if the deadline is
missed.  I'm happy to enforce my own draft-submission deadlines,
sometimes stricter and sometimes more lax, given the sorts of
situations that Pete mentioned.  As chair, I know how the WG needs to
handle the document discussions, and I should be able to deal with
that my way.

There may be times when a chair needs to ask an AD to wield his
weight.  That can be done whether or not there's a formal rule in
place for it, and whether or not the AD normally needs to be in the
approval path.  If calling on the AD for this is the norm, then I
suggest the chair is not doing a proper job and needs to fix that or
be replaced.

As to Vijay's comment about favouritism, I have some sympathy but I
note that it just pushes the accusation of favouritism to the AD,
rather than having it on the chair.  I don't see that as a benefit.
And either a chair or an AD needs to be able to support her decision,
in any case.

Please don't limit the chairs' ability to manage the work simply
because some are not good at it.

Barry

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:05:19 -0400

> state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

In my experience a *valid* need for an extension doesn't come up often, 
so it isn't a big deal to involve an AD. OTOH, ADs are very busy, and 
things like this we can do to offload them are good. I do think that 
chairs should assumed to be responsible enough to make this call.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:06:40 +0100

On 17 Aug 2011, at 15:05, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> In my experience a *valid* need for an extension doesn't come up often, so it isn't a big deal to involve an AD. OTOH, ADs are very busy, and things like this we can do to offload them are good. I do think that chairs should assumed to be responsible enough to make this call.

I agree, though I don't have strong views either way.

Tim

---

From: "George, Wesley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:57:40 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:13 PM
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: WG Chairs
Subject: Re: Draft deadline exception processing

WEG] I'd rather see a freeze remain in place. The glut of new drafts leading to a meeting happens whether there's a draft submission deadline or not, because people tend to focus on their day jobs until they remember that they need to steal cycles to prepare/revise a draft for discussion at an upcoming meeting.
I don't think that spreading the inrush out over a few more days makes much of a difference in people's ability to read drafts before the meeting either. The freeze does have a few benefits: it ensures that the drafts stop moving for long enough for there to be a reasonable assumption that we're all talking about the same version of the draft during the WG meeting, and allows them to be packaged up into tarballs (or e-reader friendly versions) for use during the more lengthy plane rides that are often the first time people have uninterrupted cycles to focus on reading/reviewing drafts.

I don't see a need to require exceptions to be AD-sponsored, but I don't have a problem with the current arrangement either.
I do like the idea of allowing people to submit revisions to the system for records-keeping purposes, but not making them live/visible until after the freeze is concluded.

Thanks
Wes

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:39:16 -0400

Hmm.  A few more comments...

--On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 23:04 +0200 Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> Generally, it is good to have a strict and uniform cutoff
>> date for all authors, least a chair is viewed of
>> demonstrating favouritism by allowing an exception to his or
>> her favourite authors.
> 
> I expect that WGs will over time develop different
> interpretations of how strict the deadline really is and this
> will lead to confusion for those active in different WGs.

This, of course, already occurs, not via AD exceptions and
late-posted documents, but via end runs of various flavors
(posting documents to WG lists, posting URLs to WG lists, etc.).
FWIW, I think there are significant advantages of trying to
force every document through the I-D process on a time-accurate
basis if only because both our IPR rules and the ability to
easily back trace when an idea was introduced in specific form
are heavily reliant on I-Ds.   

It isn't the question Pete asked, but I personally believe that
putting a stop to such end-runs (including the skeletal drafts
that Steve Kent commented on) would significantly improve the
transparency and fairness of our systems.  I'd be very pleased
to see posting tools modified to prevent posting a -01 draft if
the -00 was posted less than a week before the initial cutoff,
pushing documents of that type into the exception procedure as
well.

--On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 13:58 -0700 Fred Baker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>... 
> If anything, I would not change the deadlines. I would change
> the tool to permit someone to upload a draft during the hiatus
> period (which I would extend to the end of the IETF week, not
> the beginning), and post it in the directory at that time. I
> think it should tell them at the beginning of their processing
> that this is what's going to happen, in case they'd rather do
> something different, but if they accept, do it.

Of course, this is approximately where were were back when all
posting was manual and by the Secretariat.  Drafts could be sent
in after the deadline but would be posted only when the
Secretariat got around to it (certainly not before the Monday
morning of IETF and, if my memory is correct, usually much
later).  But I continue to believe that the various "post
elsewhere in the interim" solutions are bad for us, especially
if discussion of documents not posted through regular I-D
channels is then permitted.

>...
> If the IETF drops the deadlines or brings them significantly
> closer to the meeting, I will likely impose one in my working
> group. Air time is achievable if and only if I see supporting
> mailing list discussion AND the draft is posted early enough
> to allow it to be read prior to the meeting.

Seems like a good idea, where feasible, in any event (regardless
of what the IESG does about the deadline).

   john

p.s. I really wonder whether the closed WGChairs list and its
somewhat accidental membership is the right place to be making
this sort of decision.  People who used to be chairs and might
be again and even likely-prospect chairs might have as much
insight into the issues as those who happen to be chairs (or
IAB/IESG members) at this particular moment.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:47:19 -0500

At 09:57 AM 8/17/2011, George, Wesley wrote:
>Personally I find the two-week deadline really counterproductive, 
>since it means that there's a huge glut of new drafts on the same 
>day, and nobody has time to read that many drafts anyway.   I always 
>assumed that the two-week cutoff was for the benefit of the RFC 
>editor staff in some way, not to give people time to read drafts 
>before the meeting.   I don't think it accomplishes that.
>
>WEG] I'd rather see a freeze remain in place.

Pete

How about a compromise, as guidance, that the two week deadline 
remains in place for *all* IDs that will be presented, but allow 
exceptions (that don't really happen often now) for drafts that will 
not be presented, ensuring they get posted when the original 
authors/editors wanted to.

James

>The glut of new drafts leading to a meeting happens whether there's 
>a draft submission deadline or not, because people tend to focus on 
>their day jobs until they remember that they need to steal cycles to 
>prepare/revise a draft for discussion at an upcoming meeting.
>I don't think that spreading the inrush out over a few more days 
>makes much of a difference in people's ability to read drafts before 
>the meeting either. The freeze does have a few benefits: it ensures 
>that the drafts stop moving for long enough for there to be a 
>reasonable assumption that we're all talking about the same version 
>of the draft during the WG meeting, and allows them to be packaged 
>up into tarballs (or e-reader friendly versions) for use during the 
>more lengthy plane rides that are often the first time people have 
>uninterrupted cycles to focus on reading/reviewing drafts.
>
>I don't see a need to require exceptions to be AD-sponsored, but I 
>don't have a problem with the current arrangement either.
>I do like the idea of allowing people to submit revisions to the 
>system for records-keeping purposes, but not making them 
>live/visible until after the freeze is concluded.
>
>Thanks
>Wes
>
>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or 
>subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is 
>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it 
>is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, 
>you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, 
>copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and 
>attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
>unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify 
>the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any 
>copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:02:57 -0400

+1 on Steve's 2nd (somewhat off-topic) point.  The current -00 deadline
is really meaningless.

Lou

PS WRT the on-topic point:  It doesn't make a difference to me as I
don't foresee a case where I'd approve an exception.  Monday of the
meeting is soon enough...

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:49:56 -0500

> authors/editors wanted to.

Just to be clear: We have no intention of changing the deadline at this 
point. The only question is whether it's OK for chairs to make 
exceptions to the deadline or whether they should require AD approval. 
Even if we tell the secretariat that chairs can approve exceptions by 
email, any chair still can say, "I make no exceptions, so don't bother 
asking." The only question now is whether chairs have the option.

pr

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:11:35 -0400

--On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 14:49 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> How about a compromise, as guidance, that the two week
>> deadline  remains in place for *all* IDs that will be
>> presented, but allow  exceptions (that don't really happen
>> often now) for drafts that will  not be presented, ensuring
>> they get posted when the original  authors/editors wanted to.
> 
> Just to be clear: We have no intention of changing the
> deadline at this point. The only question is whether it's OK
> for chairs to make exceptions to the deadline or whether they
> should require AD approval. Even if we tell the secretariat
> that chairs can approve exceptions by email, any chair still
> can say, "I make no exceptions, so don't bother asking." The
> only question now is whether chairs have the option.

Pete,

To add just one thing to this, independent of how this
particular bit of procedure is worked out, any chair can (today)
say "I am imposing a rule that no draft that is not posted a
month before the meeting will be discussed, and, even then, it
won't be discussed at the meeting unless there is evidence from
mailing list discussion that the draft had been read and
understood by a lot of WG participants".  

Mow, although I think that would make a good policy in a lot of
WGs, even I probably wouldn't have the nerve to be quite that
heavy-handed.  I would also expect the restrictions to be
appealed to the AD and for an interesting discussion to follow
about their appropriateness.  But the important point is that
nothing in the current rules prevents a Chair from taking such a
position.

That, and what I understood (the first time and now) to be your
very narrow question about whether exceptions should continue to
require AD involvement or could be made by the WG chair, is why
my initial response was, approximately, that this seemed obvious
and a no-brainer.

All of the rest of this discussion about moving deadlines,
changing procedures, skeleton documents, how WG Chairs should
behave vis-a-vis late documents or documents that haven't been
discussed, the nature of end runs of the cutoffs, etc., are
interesting and may ultimately be more important than the "WG
Chair or AD" question.   But they are answers to questions you
didn't ask.

I hope I can add "yet" to that sentence, but "didn't ask" is the
important point.

     john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:04:13 +1200

On 2011-08-17 08:21, Pete Resnick wrote:
> themselves to email the exception to the secretariat. 

I think this is appropriate delegation (even without considering
AD workload). However, both as an ex-WG/BOF chair and as an IETF
citizen, I very much want the cutoff to be the norm and
post-cutoff drafts to be a rare exception. Otherwise, the large
majority of drafts will not have been read by anybody except
their authors before the meeting. There need to be strict
marching orders about this.

    Brian

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:08:08 -0400

A big plus one to Brian's comments.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:24:30 -0400

> understood by a lot of WG participants".  

I'm usually not quite that rigid, but I routinely refuse agenda time to
people who want to "present" a draft at a meeting that has never been
discussed on the mailing list.

However, I see this as somewhat separate from the question of deadlines
for getting documents posted before a meeting.  I don't want to waste
time on things in which there is no interest, or which people haven't
had an opportunity to read.  But I see no reason to aggressively prevent
authors from posting updated versions of a document that is not being
discussed, or where having read the old one is enough background.

Suppose that during a discussion, someone asks the document editor about
the status of a change that has recently been discussed and on which the
WG has reached consensus.  It would be entirely reasonable for the
author to respond, "that change is included in the update I submitted
this morning".  Depending on the circumstances, it should often also be
reasonable for the author to respond "that change is included in the
update I submitted last week".

What I don't want to hear is "that change will be included in the update
I submit next week, unless I forget about it on the plane ride home or
get buried in other work for the next 3 months".  Sometimes that
happens, but if the reason is because the editor was not permitted to
submit the update the week before, we've somehow failed.

Mostly, this speaks to questions about whether we should have such a
moratorium at all, how long it should be, and whether and when we should
grant exceptions.

Like John, I think the question of whether chairs should be _able_ to
grant exceptions is a no-brainer.

-- Jeff

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:14:36 -0700

On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

<snip>

> I very much want the cutoff to be the norm and

+1 

Having editorial discretion is if little value if it's dispensed freely.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:36:45 -0400

--On Thursday, August 18, 2011 09:04 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think this is appropriate delegation (even without
> considering AD workload). However, both as an ex-WG/BOF chair
> and as an IETF citizen, I very much want the cutoff to be the
> norm and post-cutoff drafts to be a rare exception. Otherwise,
> the large majority of drafts will not have been read by
> anybody except their authors before the meeting. There need to
> be strict marching orders about this.

Brian,

I don't want to be obnoxious about this, but I think your
reasoning about the cutoff and the frequency of post-cutoff
drafts is exactly correct.  I even think that there are a lot of
situations in which WG Chairs should be imposing rules that are
even more strict/ protective.  

But I think your conclusion about "strict marching orders" is
dead wrong.  I think that, to the degree necessary, we need to
train WG Chairs about the importance of people reading documents
in advance and giving everyone equal opportunities to do so.  I
think that, if the risks of lots of drafts piling up at the 11th
hour (or later) are not understood, that we should be sure that
they are understood.  And I think we need to expect that WG
Chairs, given discretion to allow exceptions based on what they
know about circumstances in their WGs, to behave like mature,
thoughtful, adults.   I have every confidence that the vast
majority of WG Chairs, the vast majority of the time, will do
just that and that exercise of mature discretion will yield
results that are equal of better than "strict marching orders"
almost every time.

Conversely, if a WG Chair can't get that right, then we are
_lots_ better off with a change of Chair for inability to do the
job than we are moaning about how marching orders are not being
followed.

Actually, at the risk of being really pushy about this, there is
one advantage of giving WG Chairs discretion in this matter that
no one has mentioned.   If a WG Chair doesn't have whatever it
takes to exercise that discretion wisely and therefore screws
up, he or she can be removed and replaced rapidly and
efficiently.  If an AD somehow manages to get these approvals
seriously wrong, wrong to the point that it interferes with WGs
getting work done efficiently,... well you know how well,
efficiently, and quickly the recall procedure works and how
successful it has been in the past.

This authority and responsibility belongs with the WG Chairs and
their presumably-intimate understanding of the dynamics of their
WGs, not with overworked ADs or a set of rigid rules or "strict
marching orders".   Let the ADs concentrate on things that
actually require them... and keep them available to mediate,
handle appeals, or fire people if there are problems.

    john

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:10:59 -0400

> the current state of affairs where only the ADs can approve the

I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, and I don't
really care which way the decision goes.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:44:44 +0200

I have the opposite opinion. I think the 2-week cut-off is a good thing, because, as an individual, I then know what drafts are available from the different groups I am involved in and I can prioritize reading them over the next 2 weeks. If we drop the deadline, there will be a tendency for everything to arrive at the last minute, or even if there is an even spread, the ones I need to read might arrive too late (e.g., when already on the plane). Exceptions really have to be exceptions, and I would not want to find myself in a situation where, of the groups I monitor, more than a very small handful of drafts arrive after the 2-week cut-off.

Concerning whether WG chairs should authorize it, it sounds OK in principle provided it doesn't open the floodgates. Requiring AD approval makes it a bigger hurdle, which is good. I don't really see a need for change, although as chair I have not yet had the need to authorize a late submission.

John

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: 16 August 2011 22:13
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: WG Chairs
> Personally I find the two-week deadline really 
> counterproductive, since it means that there's a huge glut of 
> new drafts on the same day, and nobody has time to read that 
> many drafts anyway.   I always assumed that the two-week 
> cutoff was for the benefit of the RFC editor staff in some 
> way, not to give people time to read drafts before the 
> meeting.   I don't think it accomplishes that.
>

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:36:38 +0000

Several times I have seen a workaround where a draft didn't make it in on time, 
but was posted on some non-IETF site.

The WG chairs allowed the presentation, 
and the draft was posted as soon as the lockout was lifted.

So, when there is a will there is a way, 
and there is no reason to attempt to account for every possible circumstance.

Y(J)S

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 06:49:56 -0400

--On Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:36 +0000 Yaakov Stein
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Several times I have seen a workaround where a draft didn't
> make it in on time,  but was posted on some non-IETF site.
> 

Except that this procedure doesn't leave tracks.  As a WG Chair,
think of the "opportunity" to stand in front of a judge and
swear that the no-longer-accessible version posted on a non-IETF
site and the version that was posted on Monday were identical.

> and there is no reason to attempt to account for every

The arguments against permitting late postings at all, or
discussing drafts that are posted after the cutoff, are at least
as strong, maybe stronger, for a draft that is posted outside
the system as they are for a late-posted I-D.  And, of the two,
the IETF is really better off with the latter.

In any event, that wasn't Pete's question.  We have a procedure
for permitting drafts to be posted late.  It now requires AD
authorization; the question is whether to change that to allow
WG Chair authorization.  As a Chair, you don't need to use it
either way, and don't need to permit discussion of a late-posted
draft (no matter how or where it is posted) if you believe that
is bad for the WG or the IETF.

I don't see any attempt to deal with "any possible
circumstances" here, only a question of whether WG Chairs are
adult enough to exercise discretion in whatever circumstances
happen to arise.

Hmm.  Would every person on this list who believes that he or
she is not mature enough to exercise that discretion (which
might simply be to always say "no"), please drop your AD a note
and tell him that?  :-)

   john

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:30:51 +0200

I might go even further than this.

As a member of a working group (rather than as a working group chair), if a chair puts a draft on the agenda that I do not think has been circulated in time for the working group to review, then I'll question its appearance on the agenda and ask for it to be removed.

Remove the deadline and you'll find all sorts of troublemakers like me surface.

Keith

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Elwell, John
> Sent: 18 August 2011 09:45
> To: Ted Lemon; Pete Resnick
> Cc: WG Chairs
> Subject: RE: Draft deadline exception processing
> 
> I have the opposite opinion. I think the 2-week cut-off is a good thing,
> because, as an individual, I then know what drafts are available from the
> different groups I am involved in and I can prioritize reading them over
> the next 2 weeks. If we drop the deadline, there will be a tendency for
> everything to arrive at the last minute, or even if there is an even
> spread, the ones I need to read might arrive too late (e.g., when already
> on the plane). Exceptions really have to be exceptions, and I would not
> want to find myself in a situation where, of the groups I monitor, more
> than a very small handful of drafts arrive after the 2-week cut-off.
> 
> Concerning whether WG chairs should authorize it, it sounds OK in
> principle provided it doesn't open the floodgates. Requiring AD approval
> makes it a bigger hurdle, which is good. I don't really see a need for
> change, although as chair I have not yet had the need to authorize a late
> submission.
> 
> John
> 
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:02:03 -0400

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 04:44, Elwell, John
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have the opposite opinion. I think the 2-week cut-off is a good thing, because, as an individual, I then know what drafts are available from the different groups I am involved in and I can prioritize reading them over the next 2 weeks. If we drop the deadline, there will be a tendency for everything to arrive at the last minute, or even if there is an even spread, the ones I need to read might arrive too late (e.g., when already on the plane).

This would only happen in poorly managed WGs :-p.  WGs should try to
get work done on the mailing list, and schedule agenda time according
to what does not get done on the mailing list.  Thus the agenda for
the meeting is not based on but on what issues need to be resolved.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:14:23 -0400

On 8/17/2011 3:49 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Just to be clear: We have no intention of changing the deadline at 
> this point. The only question is whether it's OK for chairs to make 

I've read all the email on this thread and keep coming down to the same 
answer: yes, the WG chairs should have that option without requiring AD 
approval.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:12:42 -0500

On 8/16/11 3:21 PM, Pete Resnick (for the IESG) wrote:

> Would you like the ability to make exceptions yourselves by emailing 
> the secretariat, or do you prefer the current state of affairs where 
> only the ADs can approve the exceptions?

So, though we have heard several folks say that they would welcome this 
ability and think it is a good idea, we have also heard the majority of 
folks (including many on the IESG) say that this is not an important 
enough problem (given the small number of exceptions involved) to bother 
the secretariat with making the procedural change. So we'll leave things 
the way they are, at least until we see this be more of an issue.

Thanks for your feedback.

pr - for the IESG

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:44:33 -0400

--On Monday, August 22, 2011 08:12 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Would you like the ability to make exceptions yourselves by
>> emailing  the secretariat, or do you prefer the current state
> So, though we have heard several folks say that they would
> welcome this ability and think it is a good idea, we have also
> heard the majority of folks (including many on the IESG) say
> that this is not an important enough problem (given the small
> number of exceptions involved) to bother the secretariat with
> making the procedural change. So we'll leave things the way
> they are, at least until we see this be more of an issue.
> 

Pete,

At the risk of kicking a dead horse, I think you've just made a
strong case for not changing things as long as they need to be
done manually.  But I think you've made an equally strong case
for putting this in the tools queue rather than laying it aside.
If the tools evolve to eventually let a chair approve a -00
draft for posting by name (before the author actually attempts
to post it) (an idea that has been floating around for quite a
while) and the rest of that approval model is smoothed out to
permit posting a WG -00 draft at the -01 posting deadline if it
succeeds an individually-named draft that was already under
discussion in the WG (also under discussion for some time), then
it seems to me that the number of extra bits to add 

	-- WG Chair preapproval for late posting and
	
	-- WG chair mechanisms for imposing earlier posting
	deadlines or broader preapproval requirements (e.g., not
	just for -00 drafts) on a per-WG basis

would be pretty trivial.

In other words, let's not accidentally translate "too much
trouble for the secretariat given that this has to be done
manually" into "not worth doing until after we repeat this whole
discussion three or four more times".

     john

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:38:38 -0400

> Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 9:45 AM
> To: Pete Resnick; 'WG Chairs'
> done manually.  

John,

I've just received a note from The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Horses. They have the IETF in their crosshairs.
                                                        ;-)
                                                         Ron