--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
pgpAzBSfbG0X3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf