Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, 07 September, 2004 11:35 -0700 Aaron Falk
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
>> I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
>> idea.  I believe that plenary time is full enough without
>> crowding it more.
> 
> What about a 'business meeting' that is scheduled in wg slot
> or even on Sunday?
> 
> I understand that there may be conflicts between people who
> want to go to a working group and the business meeting but we
> live with those in working groups.  Hopefully, with a smaller
> group (compared to the plenary) and largish block of time a
> good f2f dialog could take place.

In my continuing pursuit of trying to avoid fixing what isn't
broken and of doing only those things in the name of
problem-solving that actually solve problems...

(1) We have serious problems finding enough time for WGs and
BOFs to meet and to do so without serious conflicts, do we
really need to introduce another term into the equation?

(2) Is it generally understood that the ISOC BoT already usually
meets on Saturday and/or Sunday before the IETF meetings and
that those meetings are open?

(3) Would more publicity of (2) permit us to declare success on
this topic and move on, even without knowing what problem is
being solved?   :-)

Mumble.
     john





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf