That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3C
and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping
participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we
went to the current advance scheduling.
Understood.
But I wonder of we've forgotten the original motivation for this rule
and it has become an unchangable slogan (e.g., "four legs good, two
legs bad")
If, in fact, a date we've chosen turns out to be problematic in terms
of getting a good site, the IAOC should consider (emphasis on
*consider*) whether an alternate date would be better. Of course, such
a change in date should not be done lightly. And it should not be done
with out checking with the specific organizations we try to avoid
clashes with, etc. But to say the dates are fixed and immovable no
matter what seems unhelpful.
At the plenary, I recall it being said that for one of the upcoming
asian meetings, the exact dates were problematical, and alternate
dates would have had better options/rates. When I suggested privately
to the IAOC that they should *consider* changing the date, I got (what
to me) felt like one big knee jerk "we can't change the dates,
period."
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf