Re: [Gendispatch] Agenda items for gendispatch?

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

John --

As I mentioned to the chairs privately, I may well run out of time to 
rev this document prior to Vancouver. If I do have time to revise it, my 
plan is to incorporate feedback specifically about the draft that was 
provided on the [e-mail] list during the six months of its initial 
validity.

I'm not going to comment on any supposed interaction between the 
document and your appeal until the IESG has reached consensus on a 
response: doing so would necessarily presuppose an outcome (both in 
disposition and rationale), which would be presumptuous on my part.

/a

On 2/27/2020 9:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Adam,
>
> Do you plan for the new version of draft-roach-bis-documents to
> reflect the IESG's (presumably pending) response to my recent
> appeal?  I ask because the interactions between the two might
> lead to a lively discussion and hence require somewhat more time
> than a simple presentation of a new iteration on the document
> would require.
>
> best,
>    john
>
>
> --On Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:04 -0600 Pete Resnick
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I forgot to ask you Adam: How much time did you want on the
>> agenda?
>>
>> pr
>>
>> On 18 Jan 2020, at 16:18, Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/20 22:34, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>> As the time quickly approaches for requesting a meeting for
>>>> the March  IETF, your gendispatch chairs wonder if there are
>>>> agenda items for  which we should schedule a meeting. Please
>>>> let us know on the  gendispatch list (the Reply-To on this
>>>> message is set there) within  the next two weeks if you have
>>>> any potential agenda items so we can  decide if a meeting is
>>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> GENDISPATCH chairs --
>>>
>>> I'm planning to spin a new version of
>>> draft-roach-bis-documents in the  next few weeks, based on
>>> the feedback that has been provided so far. I  think this
>>> would be a candidate for discussion in GENDISPATCH.
>>>
>>> /a
>