Subject: [rrg] RRG meeting in Malta?

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:41:53 +0200

Folks,

given RRG's chronic lack of presentation slots during meetings:  Why
don't we take advantage of the IETF interim in January 2009?  Meeting
slots at the interim are full-day, and a few are still available...

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/2009/jan-large-interim/

- Christian

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:17:08 -0800

Hi Christian,

The idea is great, but if you have in mind Tue/Wed there would be an 
overlap with BEHAVE/SOFTWIRE WG meetings which unfortunately is closer 
to many people's day job then RRG.

But if you think about Monday the 19th full day for RRG IMHO it would be 
an excellent idea.

Cheers,
R.

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:26:14 +0200

Hi Robert,

I know, the overlap with Behave/Softwire is an issue.  Even personally
for me.  And unfortunately, the only day on which Behave/Software do NOT
meet, Thursday, is already fully booked.  But maybe it would be possible
to re-arrange the agenda.  Or perhaps we may get a 5th room for  
Thursday.

Anyway, before we make an agenda change request to IESG/secretariat,
let's find out how many of us would actually come to the RRG interim.

- Christian

On Nov 3, 2008, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> Cheers, R.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:53:01 -0800

Christian/all,

Having the RRG full day on Thursday would be really good.

Thx,
R.

> to re-arrange the agenda.  Or perhaps we may get a 5th room for Thursday.
>

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:45:43 -0800

|Anyway, before we make an agenda change request to IESG/secretariat,
|let's find out how many of us would actually come to the RRG interim.

Poll: http://doodle.com/participation.html?pollId=au5pf4f2wi3r34gi

Could folks please participate in this?

Note that we need critical mass here, not just majority.

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:30:02 +1300

> Note that we need critical mass here, not just majority.

Can we assume that a 'no' vote means "I can't come" rather than
"A meeting would be evil" ?

    Brian

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:30:02 +0100

> Note that we need critical mass here, not just majority.

I guess the question is how useful it would be to have a meeting with  
fewer people than usual, because it's as good as certain that not  
everyone will come.

Didn't we have a milestone in March? Would the extra face time between  
this month and then be helpful in that regard?
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:01:11 -0800

|> Note that we need critical mass here, not just majority.
|
|Can we assume that a 'no' vote means "I can't come" rather than
|"A meeting would be evil" ?

Does it really matter?  ;-)

Presumably, if the person feels that the meeting is evil, then they won't
show up.  All invective past that point is wholly irrelevant.  

Conversely, however, I would not assume that a yes vote will imply that the
person will show up.

Tony

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:50:49 -0500

Could we decide after we see what happens at the upcoming meeting?
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:06:07 -0800

|Could we decide after we see what happens at the upcoming meeting?

As always, the schedule is going to fill up, people's plans will solidify,
and basically things will get progressively harder.

Tony

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:32:03 -0800

> Conversely, however, I would not assume that a yes vote will imply  

that sounds a bit odd to me: how would one tell how many "yes" are  
show-ups, and how many are not?

(one could always hypothesize extreme cases: out of 30 yes's, 3 really  
meant showing up :(

2 more points:

1/ I share Scott's wish of making the decision after Minneapolis,  
though I see the point Tony made (planning ahead, etc)

2/ the least to say about the interim dates and location is that, as a  
*personal* view, it is prohibitively expensive for US academic people  
to attend (dates, travel time, travel expenses)
and such difficulties could impact participation, hence the outcome.

Lixia

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:22:52 -0800

|> Conversely, however, I would not assume that a yes vote will imply  
|> that the
|> person will show up.
|
|that sounds a bit odd to me: how would one tell how many "yes" are  
|show-ups, and how many are not?

You can't, unless you are willing to do something to force them to commit to
showing up (i.e., require a deposit, or penalties attached to a contract).  

Tony