Subject: Re: Friday experiment

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:53:50 -0700

On Nov 29, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda  
> submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published  
> in time, the meeting shouldn't take place.

+1

But in practice, every time something is late, an exception is made  
for it.

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:05:17 -0500

--On Saturday, 06 December, 2008 17:53 -0700 Cullen Jennings
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for
>> agenda   submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a
>> meeting is published   in time, the meeting shouldn't take
>> place.
> 
> +1
> 
> But in practice, every time something is late, an exception is
> made for it.

While I would favor more enforcement of those rules, I'm not
personally convinced that this is enough of a problem by itself
and fixing it would make a lot of difference.

However, in practice, late agendas are either a problem or they
are not a problem.  If they are not a problem, we should stop
pretending that they are.  If they are a problem, then the AD
granting the exception, or the entire IESG, should be held
accountable by the community for encouraging the problems to
occur.  

We really can't have it both ways, and neither can the WGs or
the IESG.

     john

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:23:12 +0100

John C Klensin wrote:
> ...

Indeed.

In the past, I had to plan travel, and it least in one case a WG agenda 
wasn't ready when I needed to decide about how long to stay, so I 
decided not to attend the meeting. So it has been a problem for me at 
least one :-).

BR, Julian

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:26:05 -0800

At Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:15:23 +0100,
Julian Reschke wrote:
> submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in 
> time, the meeting shouldn't take place.

+1.

I find it incredibly frustrating to be a week out from IETF and 
not know what drafts I need to read.

-Ekr

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:11 -0500

> not know what drafts I need to read.

They should be the ones that people have been arguing about for a month
before that, so that it has become clear they need to be discussed in
the meeting.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:03:05 -0800

At Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:11 -0500,
> before that, so that it has become clear they need to be discussed in

Perhaps so, but in most WGs I am involved in, plenty of new drafts
show just before the meeting and people ask for discussion time, and
then sometimes people don't show, so in practice trying to follow this
algorithm gets you a very inaccurate list.  Moreover, I (and others)
use programmatic tools to extract the list of drafts to review and
then go back and review the mailing list as necessary.

So, all this works far better if the agenda is actually accurate.

-Ekr