inline.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 09:31 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<rpelletier(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org> wrote:
John,
Thanks for the feedback. Responses in line.
John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal
list appears to have not been kept up to date:
As the opening paragraph for the page (
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html ) states:
The information below has been submitted to the IETF
Secretariat as a means of notifying readers of future events.
Readers are requested to send in dates of events that are
appropriate for this calendar section. Please send
submissions, corrections, etc., to: meeting-planning(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:meeting-planning(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
We are not staffed to monitor others' calendars and rely on
others to submit and correct data
Ray,
This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that is good
enough. If we have "must avoid" entities, then we ought to be
establishing administrative<-> administrative liaisons/ contact
points as well as technical ones, we ought to be proactively
sending out lists and requesting updates before we make
decisions, etc. I'm particularly concerned about the adjacency
cases as well as the overlap ones -- when time-adjacent meetings
need to occur, I believe we should be working actively with
those other groups to have things be plausibly convenient, not
waiting for announcements to come sailing over the wall in one
direction or another.
John,
The process followed in the development of the 2008 - 2010 calendar was
as you described. A Clash List of 34 organizations we Must (13) and
Should (21) avoid was developed. Calendar ver 00 was developed using
historical dates as a template and then efforts were undertaken by
Secretariat staff and through Liaisons to contact each organization,
make them aware of our proposed dates and learn their dates for 2008 -
2010. The calendar at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html
reflects what was learned. Few had yet calendared 2009 - 2010.
In version 01 the Must avoids have been avoided by at least 1 week,
while some Should avoids could not be avoided. Moreover adjacency
cannot be avoided with 34 groups and 52 weeks.
The fact that this list hasn't been kept current with regard to
IETF site decisions is a pretty good indication of the problem
with passively sitting around waiting for updates. IASA
certainly can't claim that IETF didn't tell you.
Passively sitting around might suggest that staff aren't busy and I can
assure you that it absolutely not the case. It was an oversight to
which I and they will be more attentive.
It may also be that, in critical, must-avoid, cases, IAB should
be formally tasking the technical liaisons to be sure these
lists are kept up to date, but that is, IMO, no substitute for
staff-level coordination.
The Liaisons were part of the process, although not as a formal tasking
by the IAB. This initiative has established new staff-level, two-way
relationships which we expect to result in better maintenance of the
calendar.
Again, just my opinion, but I've tried to be in IETF meetings
and meetings IETF has tasked me with attending, on opposite
sides of the world, at the same time or nearly so, a few times
too often. It is seriously inconvenient for the people involved
and reflects very badly on the IETF.
We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to
reduce the inconvenience for you and others.
Best
Ray
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf