Hi Harald,
In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be possible to make it
a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks before a meeting instead of 30
days. My comment, based on very recent experience, is that the rest of the
Interim meeting planning procedure must be described more explicitly.
The idea is not to have this in a new draft, or if actually we want it, make
it in specific one, not mixed with anything else.
The actual rules on this are at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt
"The area directors will evaluate proposed interim meetings and conference
calls to be sure that that the location, timing, etc. do not unfairly favor
some subset of the potential attendees and that the proposed meeting or call
will not unfairly bias the working group discussions."
This is my proposal:
"Interim meetings must be planned ahead, in order to facilitate a broader
participation, reduce clashes with other meetings or events, and bring the
cost down for the attendees.
The need for them is typically recognized during a main IETF meeting. In
order to allow a fair participation, they need to be announced in the
relevant WG mail exploder 60 days in advance of the expected meeting date
with a request for candidate hosts and dates. Typically this means
announcing it already during the running main IETF meeting which recognized
the need for that. This will also facilitate the planning for some of the
participants.
Once the intention to hold the meeting has been announced, in one week time,
the "hosting" offers should be confirmed to the relevant WG mail exploder.
The co-chair and ADs will provide a summary at the end of that week,
excluding possible identified clashes and the WG will have one more week for
the a vote on that.
All the process must be made openly in the mail exploder in order to allow
certain interaction for possible small variations during the 1 week proposal
time.
The final decision should be taken at least 6 weeks in advance to the
meeting.
The ADs will base its decision in the mailing list vote, prioritizing the
participation of those which have work related to the meeting target and
indicate their interest in attending. In any case the target is to not
unfairly favor some subset of other potential attendees in such way that the
proposed meeting will not unfairly bias the working group discussions.
The ADs should consider not holding the meeting if there is an impossibility
for key contributors with existing work to attend.
Is expected that the meeting is organized 3-4 weeks ahead of a full IETF
meeting, unless the AD says otherwise."
This could be represented as:
60(+) days - Announcement of Intention to hold it 3-4 weeks
/------------------------------------------------------\/----------------\
IETF Int. m. announced Int. m. IETF
|-----------|-------------|------------|----------------|-----------------|
| 1 week | 1 week 6(+) weeks
| |
| +------> start of voting 1 week period
+--------------------> start of proposals 1 week period
How do you feel about this ?
Regards,
Jordi
PS: May be we need something similar for conference calls, but the timing
should be different
De: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:15:04 -0800
Para: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: Softwires Interim Meeting
--On 24. januar 2006 18:08 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear
suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will
circulate them ASAP.
I wonder if that's the right approach.....
the original impetus for the "30 day rule" was a situation where we had a
non-US IETF (I think it was Adelaide), and suddenly were hit by a flurry of
requests for "interim" meetings a week or two before or afte the IETF
meeting - all of them intending to be in the US.
The interpretation of some was that this looked like an attempt by US
participants to avoid the expense of going overseas, leading to a
perception that they thought it was fair that overseas participants always
paid the cost of participating in US meetings, but not vice versa.
In this case, the IETF meeting is in the US, and the interim meeting is not
- so the foot may be in the other mouth, as the saying goes.
If making rules, I'd say "30 days is the norm. It's a rule unless the AD
says otherwise; the AD's decision has to be published" (so that we can see
who to blame if the community thinks it's not OK.
But be careful what's a rule and what's advice, and don't mix too many
topics into one document..... it destroys the ability to get finished.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf