Subject: [clue] Fwd: Doodle: Link for poll "CLUE Virtual Interim"

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:43:22 -0500

HI all,

Unfortunately, we've had a number of people that are not able to attend a
f2f meeting due to lack of travel funding, time commitments and personal
conflicts.  I do want to thank Simon et al for their willingness to host a
f2f meeting and I still intend to get to Naples somehow in the near future
;)

So, Paul and I have chatted and we are proposing a virtual interim meeting
instead.  As we discussed one of the benefits of a f2f is getting everyone
in one place since we do have a timezone split across the group that makes
it difficult to get everyone on a call at the same time.  So, we'd really
like to get 100% participation from our key contributors (i.e., document
authors and reviewers).  As a compromise, we are proposing a 3pm Eastern
meeting start for a 2 hour meeting.  I know this is quite late for Europe &
Israel and quite early for folks in Asia and Australia.  But, hopefully,
folks can make the sacrifice this one time - I realize that's very easy for
me say given my timezone ;)

So, here's the doodle:
http://doodle.com/b5qtvb3ar5t25xad

Please consider using the yellow if it's not an optimal time but if you're
willing to make the sacrifice for that time.

Please respond to the doodle no later than Wednesday, April 2nd at noon
Eastern, so that we can make a decision.

Thanks,
Mary

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:38:50 -0400

Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> instead...

    Mary should own up to the same problem Alissa and I have with 2:00 pm
eastern time (IESG formal telechats alternate Thursdays, usually but not
always finished by 2:00 pm).

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:44:25 -0500

Thanks for the reminder. Clearly, IESG was clearly not on my mind yesterday
morning ;)

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:46:04 +0000

Hi Mary,

As this would be only a 2 hour meeting, are there specific topics you intend to cover?

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: clue [[email-masked]] on behalf of Mary Barnes [[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March, 2014 8:43 PM
To: CLUE
Subject: [clue] Fwd: Doodle: Link for poll "CLUE Virtual Interim"

HI all,

Unfortunately, we've had a number of people that are not able to attend a f2f meeting due to lack of travel funding, time commitments and personal conflicts.  I do want to thank Simon et al for their willingness to host a f2f meeting and I still intend to get to Naples somehow in the near future ;)

So, Paul and I have chatted and we are proposing a virtual interim meeting instead.  As we discussed one of the benefits of a f2f is getting everyone in one place since we do have a timezone split across the group that makes it difficult to get everyone on a call at the same time.  So, we'd really like to get 100% participation from our key contributors (i.e., document authors and reviewers).  As a compromise, we are proposing a 3pm Eastern meeting start for a 2 hour meeting.  I know this is quite late for Europe & Israel and quite early for folks in Asia and Australia.  But, hopefully, folks can make the sacrifice this one time - I realize that's very easy for me say given my timezone ;)

So, here's the doodle:

Please consider using the yellow if it's not an optimal time but if you're willing to make the sacrifice for that time.

Please respond to the doodle no later than Wednesday, April 2nd at noon Eastern, so that we can make a decision.

Thanks,
Mary

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:50:50 -0500

Keeping in mind that the details will be refined as we work through things
at the weekly meetings up to the interim.  Ideally, we will have closed all
FW open issues by then and feel comfortable with setting aside that
document while we work on the solution.  So, here's a tentative proposal:
1) Data channel (maybe 30 minutes)
2) CLUE data model & protocol (maybe 30 minutes)
3) Signaling/orchestration + complete call flow (60 minutes)

I will try to have all the new issues that need to be added in the tracker
over the next week or so and since we are working towards all these being
WG documents, it will be easier to assign the issues to each of the docs as
appropriate.  So, I would hope that the meeting will be mostly focused on
resolving issues and being at the point of looking at a call flow to find
any gaps.

Mary.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:55:48 +0000

Hi,

At the moment (things may of course change) there aren't any major open issue with the CLUE Data Channel itself. Much is held up due to dependencies on work taking place elsewhere (RTCWEB, MMUSIC etc), and we can't do anything about that in our meetings. 

So, my suggestion would be to focus more on the signaling, i.e. the usage of the data channel.

Regards,

Christer
________________________________________
From: Mary Barnes [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 8:50 PM
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: CLUE
Subject: Re: [clue] Fwd: Doodle: Link for poll "CLUE Virtual Interim"

Keeping in mind that the details will be refined as we work through things at the weekly meetings up to the interim.  Ideally, we will have closed all FW open issues by then and feel comfortable with setting aside that document while we work on the solution.  So, here's a tentative proposal:
1) Data channel (maybe 30 minutes)
2) CLUE data model & protocol (maybe 30 minutes)
3) Signaling/orchestration + complete call flow (60 minutes)

I will try to have all the new issues that need to be added in the tracker over the next week or so and since we are working towards all these being WG documents, it will be easier to assign the issues to each of the docs as appropriate.  So, I would hope that the meeting will be mostly focused on resolving issues and being at the point of looking at a call flow to find any gaps.

Mary.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Mary,

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: clue [[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] on behalf of Mary Barnes [[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March, 2014 8:43 PM
To: CLUE
Subject: [clue] Fwd: Doodle: Link for poll "CLUE Virtual Interim"

HI all,

So, here's the doodle:

Thanks,
Mary

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:09:37 -0500

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Christer Holmberg <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> At the moment (things may of course change) there aren't any major open
> issue with the CLUE Data Channel itself. Much is held up due to
> dependencies on work taking place elsewhere (RTCWEB, MMUSIC etc), and we
> can't do anything about that in our meetings.
>
[MB] While we certainly can't make binding decisions with regards to work
in other WGs, there's  nothing wrong with discussing issues and potentially
identifying solutions that meet CLUE requirements and then someone taking
an action to drive that in the other WG.  From what I have seen, CLUE isn't
a priority for the other WGs, so they're not going to do something that
helps CLUE without someone from CLUE being willing to drive it.
 Personally, I think there would be a lot of value in MMUSIC having an
interim meeting, but I haven't seen any mention of such, even when it was
brought up in the context of the RTCWEB WG interim.  [/MB]

> So, my suggestion would be to focus more on the signaling, i.e. the usage
[MB] Right and I've already indicated that's where we would spend the
majority of the time.  Of course, we will produce a more detailed agenda a
couple weeks before the virtual interim (that's about 8 weeks out), so
there's time to get some work done before then.  [/MB]

> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> From: clue [[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] on
> behalf of Mary Barnes [[email-masked]<mailto:
> [email-masked]>]

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:44:41 -0400

On 3/27/14 2:50 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Keeping in mind that the details will be refined as we work through
> things at the weekly meetings up to the interim.  Ideally, we will have
> closed all FW open issues by then and feel comfortable with setting
> aside that document while we work on the solution.  So, here's a
> tentative proposal:
> I will try to have all the new issues that need to be added in the
> tracker over the next week or so and since we are working towards all
> these being WG documents, it will be easier to assign the issues to each
> of the docs as appropriate.  So, I would hope that the meeting will be
> mostly focused on resolving issues and being at the point of looking at
> a call flow to find any gaps.

The last paragraph above is key. We are now in the end game - working to 
*finish* all of these documents. Based on the London meeting there is 
work for everybody to do. The interim should be for addressing issues 
that have arisen while doing that.

IMO we should target to have new revisions of at least the signaling, 
data model, and protocol well in advance of the interim. And for people 
to have reviewed those. Then the meeting time can be spent on thrashing 
out remaining issues.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Mary.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Christer Holmberg
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
>
>
>     Hi Mary,
>
>     From: clue [[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>] on
>     behalf of Mary Barnes [[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>]
>     Unfortunately, we've had a number of people that are not able to
>     attend a f2f meeting due to lack of travel funding, time commitments
>     and personal conflicts.  I do want to thank Simon et al for their
>     willingness to host a f2f meeting and I still intend to get to
>     Naples somehow in the near future ;)
>
>     So, Paul and I have chatted and we are proposing a virtual interim
>     meeting instead.  As we discussed one of the benefits of a f2f is
>     getting everyone in one place since we do have a timezone split
>     across the group that makes it difficult to get everyone on a call
>     at the same time.  So, we'd really like to get 100% participation
>     from our key contributors (i.e., document authors and reviewers).
>       As a compromise, we are proposing a 3pm Eastern meeting start for
>     a 2 hour meeting.  I know this is quite late for Europe & Israel and
>     quite early for folks in Asia and Australia.  But, hopefully, folks
>     can make the sacrifice this one time - I realize that's very easy
>     for me say given my timezone ;)
>
>     So, here's the doodle:
>     Please consider using the yellow if it's not an optimal time but if
>     you're willing to make the sacrifice for that time.
>
>     Please respond to the doodle no later than Wednesday, April 2nd at
>     noon Eastern, so that we can make a decision.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Mary
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>