Subject: Need for an Agenda Cutoff date?

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:03:16 -0800

Hi, all,

With agendas appearing ever later - including last night, the issue of 
cutoff dates should be revisited.

If reading the drafts to be discussed is NOT an issue, then the I-D 
cutoff dates should be dropped.

If reading the drafts IS an issue, then, by correlary, there should be a 
corresponding cutoff date for agendas - e.g., 1 week after the last 
cutoff I-D date. Jjust as I-Ds that pass the cutoffs are not published 
for this IETF, WGs that fail to meet that deadline should be CANCELLED.

Consider this a proposal, or at least a request.

Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:27:15 +0000

It seems the cutoff is more often a driver to get updates written, and 00
drafts kicked off.  One alternative is to review other means to encourage
timely and regular draft updates?  This might help distribute the load
through the year rather than into three hectic chokepoints.

Tim

-- 
Tim

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:36:20 +0100

> Consider this a proposal, or at least a request.

+1

Julian (still wondering whether there'll be a WebDAV WG meeting -- 
neither is an agenda available, nor was there any announcement on the 
WG's mailing list)

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:48:28 +0100

Joe,

There is an agenda cutoff that WG chairs are supposed
to respect. This time it was:

 > The agenda for the Working Group is due by Monday,
 > February 28 at 12:00 ET (17:00 GMT).

But there were many late agendas and there was a glitch
in the process of posting them.

For BOFs, the formal BOF proposal must include an agenda,
and that was due this time on February 21.

We need to try and follow our own rules next time.

    Brian

Joe Touch wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:02:11 -0800

> We need to try and follow our own rules next time.

What we have, IMO, is a deadline, but not a "cutoff" - as in "miss the 
date and you don't get to hold your WG".

Joe

>> If reading the drafts IS an issue, then, by correlary, there should be 
>> a corresponding cutoff date for agendas - e.g., 1 week after the last

---

From: Bill Strahm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:08:50 -0800

> in the process of posting them.

Guilty (IPoIB WG Chair here) - now solution space

> We need to try and follow our own rules next time.

Time to get Hard about this - if WG agendas aren't published by the 
cutoff date - the WG doesn't meet.  Anyone I've ever talked to says good 
meeting practice includes publishing an agenda - if there isn't enough 
interest in publishing an agenda, there isn't enough interest in 
attending a meeting.

If a WG is scheduled to meet on the cutoff date and there isn't an 
agenda published on the cutoff - a message goes to the WG chair (and 
maybe to the WG as well) with a warning and if they don't get an agenda 
to the IETF in 24 hours...

CANCEL THE MEETING

Brian - is this going to be your first contribution to the IETF as the 
incoming chair ?

Bill
(who would have had his meeting cancelled today with these rules - but 
this is the right thing to do)

>
>    Brian
>
> Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> With agendas appearing ever later - including last night, the issue 
>> of cutoff dates should be revisited.
>>
>> If reading the drafts IS an issue, then, by correlary, there should 
>> be a corresponding cutoff date for agendas - e.g., 1 week after the 
>> last cutoff I-D date. Jjust as I-Ds that pass the cutoffs are not 
>> published for this IETF, WGs that fail to meet that deadline should 
>> be CANCELLED.
>>

---

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:46:23 -0500

--On Monday, March 07, 2005 12:02 PM -0800 Joe Touch <[email-masked]> wrote:

> What we have, IMO, is a deadline, but not a "cutoff" - as in "miss the date and you don't get to
> hold your WG".

I would not mind this (and I'm batting 0.500 wrt "my" groups; at
least I got the final one in last week...), but there's also a
"carrot" approach.

It used to be that the chairs got reminded a week or so before
the agendas were due to send them in.  This no longer happens.
It should not be required, but it was a nice reminder, and
would have prodded me to being on time with both.

--Matt