Sure, I agree with all that but I was wondering how people would view
the SG vs BOF issues. I know anything will be a judgement call with
tradeoffs - I'm sure we have had occasion where running the BOF was
more important than some of the WGs but as for the most part WG get
strong precedence over BOFs. I'm wondering if the SGs are going to
make it even harder to schedule BOF of if the SGs should expect to
get 100% bumped when we have a meeting that wants a few BOFs in one
of the fuller areas. Clearly neither of these sounds much fun but
given I sometimes have to help make theses scheduling tradeoffs, I
would love to have any input from the community on what I should be
doing.
On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
The number of slots taken up by SGs is controlled by how many SGs are
chartered and how long the SGs take. Both factors are under the
control
of the IESG, which has already suggested a maximum of 3 GS to be
chartered
under the experiment.
Assuming that the IESG charters SGs for the minimum period
initially (6
months), is tough on extensions, and balances the value of SGs with
the available room slots and other factors, the problem seems
controllable, particularly since a fair number of WGs are on the
verge of
concluding.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> Would you see them being above or below BOFs?
>
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> >I have one additional concern about this proposal. If a study
group is
> >intended to meet at an IETF, it will compete with slot requests
both
> >from IETF working groups and IRTF research groups. I wouldn't
want to
> >prohibit f2fs but I would certainly suggest that they come in
low on the
> >totem pole for space requests.
> >
> >Eliot
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf