Subject: Upcoming IETF meeting - Agenda items

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:33:58 +0200

Hi,

I have requested a slot for the upcoming IETF.

The intention is for the design team to submit an update of the 
draft in time for this meeting.  Currently the agenda consists of 
brief overviews and then discussions of some of the open issues.

Please send me any agenda item you believe should be on the agenda.

a.
-- 
Avri Doria

Institute for System Technology   Mobile: +46 73 029 8019
Lulea University of Technology    Office: +46 920 49 3030
SE 971-87 Lulea                   In US:  +1 401 663 5024
Sweden                            [email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:10:20 -0400

Thanks!

Two open issues I think should get explicit agenda time, because I do not 
detect a clear consensus:

- The timetable of the nomcom should be lengthened (I think there is 
consensus on that). What should it be changed to?
- Should there be some kind of publication of names of nominees?

Note: I think the last debate would be unproductive withot VERY specific 
proposals aired to the list beforehand. The devil is in the details.

                         Harald

--On 19. juni 2002 07:33 +0200 avri <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The intention is for the design team to submit an update of the draft in
> time for this meeting.  Currently the agenda consists of brief overviews
> and then discussions of some of the open issues.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:19:58 +0200

In an absolutely ideal world we would start one whole IETF sooner, but
I think that is unrealistic. How about starting in September, and adjusting
the sequence so that the slates are submitted a month earlier? Something like

(2)  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
        completed within 5 months.

      The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
      completed one month prior to the Friday of the week before the
      First IETF.  It is expected to begin 6 months prior to the Friday
      of the week before the First IETF, with the slates being ready for
      confirmation two months prior to that day.

> - Should there be some kind of publication of names of nominees?

If we stretch the schedule as above, I don't think this is necessary.
The reason I suggested it was to avoid a last minute panic in the
confirming bodies. By allowing a full month for confirmation, we get
rid of the panic.

   Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:02:32 -0700

> In an absolutely ideal world we would start one whole IETF sooner, but I
> think that is unrealistic. How about starting in September, and adjusting

to me, these are about the only interesting issues.

and brian's approach makes sense to me except i do not see why moving to the
july/august ietf is unrealistic.

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:15:49 +0200

> july/august ietf is unrealistic.

Maybe we should say that the NomCom chair should be appointed before that IETF,
so that the volunteer pool can be solicited during the IETF?

    Brian

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:21:53 -0700

>so that the volunteer pool can be solicited during the IETF?

I really like the idea of the Chair being appointed well in advance. That 
way, he/she could be better prepared to hit the ground running when NomCom 
begins. NomCom is really tough on a chair who happens to have a day job. 
Any help we can give them in this exercise will be appreciated by everyone 
involved.