On 2011-08-02 11:35, David Kessens wrote:
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up again in the IAB, but now that you
mention it here, I fully agree!
iirc, the second plenary was invented (partly be me, I suspect) because there
was no other session where cross-area architectural topics could be discussed
Parallel sessions for such topics are unsuitable, because of clashes
for almost everybody.
The situation now seems to be that we have such a plenary session automatically,
and if there isn't an important architectural topic, we invent one to fill
the time.
That seems backwards. Maybe the IAB and the IRTF should bid for a plenary slot
only when they have an important cross-area topic to propose, and if there isn't
a topic, there isn't a plenary. That would be more like a plenary BOF.
In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be
made in the other plenary.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf