Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 16 May 2018 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2BE12946D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLysEsVX-PHV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5DB4126CE8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id e185-v6so616264ita.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=+eqG7H62NTHGvvIIpuNg3Wfs+Ff+QgImlVaSYmPaGLA=; b=VFvGsFGsAkevzFBBjE5cd1Mk7B1Y2aV0y9/jITArn7zJL7StlkjMioonG97wjxUFpX HJymPJU8Ojm8n0wrK6eAZAeg3RtUacHFhGAiBzL5Hue8PSrJ9RVfDZFVI20lGsN5buLk Da5fiqy9CvHJzpmCHwM/h6+Z1hko4oZufTBGyYvIM0xSYYzp3NyLqKLUU4VY+nOdx/Qw ThYddZ0oXx6S76+yjLVAklPwHdwcdj+hDJIEeQqzY88dD70+eyOSNKcoiDB5Wf2nbhLK aLQvPs62lLfSQ/2LElR/04FFRhBZu4H8uFK7CzmvisiYfS+/IZ0c68ob9+7HZQC6UBwJ 1RUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=+eqG7H62NTHGvvIIpuNg3Wfs+Ff+QgImlVaSYmPaGLA=; b=PL0gHwZ1gL9pIuKDOlUp7a5TNXa3yfp1cDli1FOxAXMXbSYVzfuaLQi8hDgnYfYnUj E5Tj+qvUtPf7lil8lM17E/LLwllsRhsgowonNfXcbcbkByw6O3r8oIk3Op351ULo/Ddh 3OicuTWds3KoM6i7xciO2vWRv9DIjfflwe8me8HaQLgjQy4dCyG6xEf8LgyGHCxgIPOr R1xCJErUaNcJnv9VHDLXFBnlIw9eH5r3ZtII+elPy9Luqiq1dYjEVhgWL+2EwQm/oy4Z v4w2S4xg4Qde6MuhFOOYlSlqYvcDqBCS/WYtqLGbI3wm8sm0gCYp6DHePUtAHhgAXQAy KSQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwccjupVzrzD6e9NztRy970C/HSvgkZ0RpIz/mvjF/Y0M+XuXqC1 QjYnQx/9/KzIe6xvP7OsXmlmhqaV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrB91r1QH5oj+n8as//KaJxFAOPEj2Cn8WQ9rl+O52cT8Clt/NLef5X3UvEe0wBRQ13VO/QPw==
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b386:: with SMTP id c128-v6mr744937iof.50.1526473349772; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.168.225] ([12.215.68.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s25-v6sm1210446ioa.43.2018.05.16.05.22.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 May 2018 05:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <3678CC52-1F1B-4B17-8654-E75C9B63AD39@ietf.org> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <B0824E35-23D5-4836-8D1B-423830F3E6A8@nohats.ca> <6dc1e452-2168-a00e-fb2b-d48a46aa895d@pi.nu> <36fab0bc-ef5d-070a-be86-9d0d74d95ceb@gmail.com> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <dd0bacae-290b-ad23-cdbf-8c159462c436@nostrum.com> <yblin7oihqz.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <18562.1526434980@localhost>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ea356664-6a9d-133a-4559-7cd2f2b48404@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:22:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18562.1526434980@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/clm40EwRcr6ZPUrpcnDvvhBafFw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:22:32 -0000


On 16/05/2018 02:43, Michael Richardson wrote:
> It would be nice if there was a survey asking people about WG conflicts for 101,
> 102 and 103. (We could go back further, but remembering 101 will be hard
> enough)
Yes, because my experience is that the IESG are not getting this right. 
Sure some responsibility
belongs with the chairs, but I would expect the IESG to add to that 
input and modify the conflict sets
accordingly.

I would be good to have some hard evidence through a survey of what 
conflicts the attendees
think were a problem.

Stewart