Subject: Re: Draft deadline exception processing

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:36:03 -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
>...
> 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?

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: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:41:03 -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: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:52:12 +0100

> > 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'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.

Right.
You're all very kind to worry about AD workloads.
I think there was a total of five such drafts for Quebec.
Causing an exception is a one-line email to the Secretariat with the I-D
attached. 
Researching an exception is usually just reading an email from a WG chair.

So, let's not worry about the ADs' lifestyles.

Can we focus on the function that will make running the meetings optimal.

Thanks,
Adrian