Re: [Edm] EDM program meeting at IETF 114

I was asking this question because I wasn’t sure if it should/need to be on the main agenda. But as I said we definitely want to session in the datatracker and also respectively an announcement to be sent (as we do with interims).

What are the pros/cons to have on the main agenda?

I guess announcing is widely is good, however, on the other hand I think we still aim for a not too large group of people to have an interactive discussion. Also I think we should not overload the lunch slots of the agenda with things that then suddenly appear more formal then they might be… so tending to not put it on the main agenda but don’t have a strong opinion. Or do we need to bring this to attention of the whole IAB?

Mirja

P.S.: Tommy is on holidays till end of the week. But David might have an opinion…?

> On 13. Jul 2022, at 18:44, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/13/22 11:42 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> The EDM chairs should definitely put the session in the datatracker as this is also what we did for the interim meetings and it’s good to have the complete record there.
>> 
>> Will that automatically mean that is will show up on the main agenda?
> No - I think they will need the secretariat's help to make that happen correctly. Lets take that conversation off-list.
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>>  
>>> On 11. Jul 2022, at 18:48, Cindy Morgan <cmorgan@amsl.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> The IAB agreed to take Technical Programs public right as COVID started, so the precedent is mostly theoretical at this point, but it is there. For example, Model-T requested a slot in the regular agenda for 107, but since that meeting ended up being truncated to just BOFs and Area meetings, that session didn't actually happen.
>>> 
>>> We can get this EDM session added to the main agenda, if that's what you would like, it would just appear as being in a slot by itself since it's before the regular sessions start.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Cindy
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 8, 2022, at 2:59 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>> 
>>>> I’m not aware of IAB program meetings other than the RFC Editor Model program showing up on the main agenda. We don’t have room for this as a regular session.
>>>> 
>>>> Cindy, can you comment on the standard practice here?
>>>> 
>>>> Tommy
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2022, at 11:49 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Resending from a better address - admins please delete the one stuck in queue)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/8/22 1:32 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>>>>> This isn't on the agenda. Please ask the secretariat if they can make it appear.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Had you considered requesting it as a regular session?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> RjS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/29/22 11:28 AM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello EDM,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For IETF 114, we’re planning on having an in-person discussion for the EDM program!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Currently, this is booked for 9-10am (Philadelphia time) on Thursday, July 28, in the IAB room (Independence D - Mezzanine).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you have agenda topics you’d like to suggest within the realm of Extensibility, Deployability, and Maintenance, please let us know!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Some initial topics we’ll want to cover are:
>>>>>>> - Community feedback on draft-iab-protocol-maintenance, and plan for publishing the document
>>>>>>> - Status of implementation tracking and next steps
>>>>>>> - Scrubbing of issues list: https://github.com/intarchboard/program-edm/issues
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Tommy & David
>>> -- 
>>> Edm mailing list
>>> Edm@iab.org
>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm
> 