Re: [rtcweb] Considerations for Interim Meetings
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 11 April 2012 18:00 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DC811E808D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h5sIY2QaPTpb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B22C11E8098 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6935C39E17B; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:00:09 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sufTiElGTSL9; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:00:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.11.193] (c213-89-143-9.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.143.9]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 922FB39E098; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:00:08 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F85C6A4.4050608@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:00:04 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <4F857EA8.8030003@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F857EA8.8030003@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Considerations for Interim Meetings
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:00:11 -0000
On 04/11/2012 02:52 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > WG, > > We chair would like to discuss some policies we WG chairs intended to > use for interim meetings going forward. > > 1) For physical meetings the WG chairs select the location in a > round-robin fashion among regions where we have significant amount of > active contributors. This is to spread the inconvenience and cost of > long distance travel. When considering where to put the next instalment of the round-robin, will the location of IETF meetings be considered too? I note that the 3 next IETF meetings are all in North America (Vancouver, Atlanta and Orlando). It would be very strange if a meeting between Atlanta and Orlando were held in the eastern US. > > 2) We will in the future pick the location prior to any poll for > suitable dates so that participants can weigh the location fully into > there response to any such poll. > > 3) For Virtual Interims the time of the day when the meeting is held > will be alternated among possible times if necessary to enable > reasonable participation times for regions with significant amount of > active contributors. This is also to spread the pain of inconvenient > time periods of the day. > > Please comment on these policies. Additional policies that you want us > WG chairs to use? For logistics, long lead times are a Good Thing; the formal W3C announcement lead time is 8 weeks. This means that it will be good to announce the intent of holding an interim *before* the prior IETF meeting. For interims in response to breaking issues, we should use teleconferences, IMHO. > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > (WG chair) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] Considerations for Interim Meetings Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Considerations for Interim Meetings Harald Alvestrand