Re: [MMUSIC] MMUSIC WG June 17th virtual interim agenda

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 06/17/2013 04:47 AM, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> Our expectation is that there will be many questions and comments on 
> each of the plan presentations as we go through them, hence the 1 hour 
> allocation for each suggested. Furthermore, we wanted to ensure that 
> each plan got it's fair share of time allocated to discussion. The 
> remaining 40 mins were intended to be more open-ended discussion based 
> on what we have heard and discussed for each plan by then.
>
> Based on the above, please let us know if folks still feel the agenda 
> should be modified.

If the purpose is to inform people about the plans, that's a fine agenda.

If the purpose is to find out whether there's a chance we can find 
consensus around one plan, another plan or a third plan, I think the 
agenda is not suited for that purpose.

Since the point of having an IETF process is to get to decisions, and 
the point of having interims is to further the IETF process, I still 
think we could allocate more time to what's important.

This issue's been festering for a year at least. We need to stop 
informing ourselves and find a consensus.