IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU> Tue, 07 September 2004 18:55 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20274; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:55:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4lAz-0003HN-9C; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:58:46 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4l3V-0006un-At; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:51:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4kpi-00047d-48 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:36:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18956 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4ktB-0002vq-GT for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:40:22 -0400
Received: from [69.83.211.195] (195.sub-69-83-211.myvzw.com [69.83.211.195]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i87IZxx08771; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <tslhdqcuj8i.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
References: <412D268D.3020402@thinkingcat.com> <tslhdqcuj8i.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <BC833A4B-00FC-11D9-9699-000A95DBDB84@isi.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:35:47 -0700
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-ISI-4-32-5-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: falk@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

--aaron


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status