Subject: Re: [regext] Multiple REGEXT Sessions at IETF Meetings

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:25:50 -0400

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:50:28PM +0000, Roger D Carney wrote:
>> tings during the week:  a working session (90-120 minutes) earlier in the week and; a status session (90 minutes) later in the week, preferably two or three days after the working session (e.g. Mon-Wed or Mon-Thur).
>
> I rarely make the sessions (I usually have a conflict), but I think
> you're going to have a very hard time convincing the IESG to give the
> WG 180 or more minutes.  That's a _lot_ of agenda time.
>
> I'm also a little sad that a "status" session could take anything
> approaching 90 minutes.  Even the IAB and IESG have figured out that
> most of what passes for status should not show up in presentations,
> but should be in emails distributed in advance so that people can
> discuss topics that arise as a result.  Couldn't that be cut down?
>
> A

I think "status session" doesn't accurately describe what transpired.
It was more like "lightening discussion". Each draft author, sans
slides, gave a two or three sentence "here the issues" statement, and
then mike lines formed with lots of back and forth. I thought it was
quite productive.

That's my opinion anyway. Maybe others perceived it differently.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 16:41:33 -0400

Ah.  That doesn't sound like "status" at all. More like "problem solving". Sounds fabulous. Probably wise to present it to the IESG that way :-)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 12:25, Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext