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

+1

Try to make progress towards a decision (or, gasp, an actual decision)

On 6/17/2013 3:40 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org