Re: [Softwires] Softwire Interim Meeting

[Xing Li <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chairs,

As we scheduled in Vancouver meeting, we hope to have this interim
in Hong Kong. The Department of Information Engineering in Chinese 
University of Hong Kong (CUHK) would like to host the meeting room.
The IE department has a couple of fairly large rooms in the new
engineering building that are not used for class rooms.  The normal
capacity of the room should be 70 people, with chairs, projector,
and possibility for break up meeting.  There are a couple of other
meeting rooms which can be used for break up meetings if necessary.
Although these are department rooms, we need to book it as early as
possible. We only need to acknowledge their support somehow as a 
co-sponsor of the meeting.

By the way, Chinese New Year is on Jan. 29. At that time, most Chinese
may have a vacation of more than one week. We should probably avoid 
the Chinese New Year days since there will be less support - such 
as shuttle bus within the campus, restaurants, and the help of some 
staff members here.

Hongkong has a well developed metro system (like Paris), and CUHK is 
just at the University Station of Metro Black Line at the north of HK. 
It is less than about half an hour to take metro from downtown to CUHK, 
so individuals can live in most hotels in HK. One option here is 
"Royal Park Hotel" (http://www.royalpark.com.hk/) at a big shopping 
plaza, which is only two stops away along the Metro Black Line.

In summary,

Hong Kong: hosted by Chinese University of Hong Kong: Jan 23-24 or 24-25
     No cost to participants for the meeting room.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

Xing Li

David Ward wrote:

>All -
>
>Apologies if anyone felt left out of the process, it wasn't the intent of
>the initial posting by Alain and myself on the proposed dates. Perhaps the
>wording was not adequate to represent what we wanted to convey which is
>below: 
>
>Those that can host the event (provide the room - enough for 75, breakfast
>and lunch for all days) please reply to Alain and myself so that we can
>organize the posting of the available locations and dates. From that we will
>select the venue and dates that the most people can attend. Please have the
>host offers between Jan 23 and Feb 10th. So far, we have:
>
>
>San Jose, California (SJC) hosted by Cisco: Jan 23-24 or 24-25
>    No cost to participants for the meeting room and early and midday meal.
>    Voice conferencing will be made available if desired.
>
>
>NOTE: Since we were in Europe last time, it would be best if we were in Asia
>or Americas.
>
>There is no binding to the initially proposed date unless significant number
>of folks have made their travel arrangements. If folks have made plans and
>they cannot be changed, please reply to Alain and myself. The reason this
>week was chosen is that it is the time and location our ADs could join us as
>they will both be in the Bay Area on other IESG work.  Note that the 26-27
>and 30-31 are not available due to either WG chair or AD conflict.
>
>A couple of pragmatic reminders: there is little chance we can find a date
>and location that will satisfy everyone but, we will try our best to get the
>most people in a comfortable room that will not cost too much in travel
>expenses. Apologies in advance for folks that cannot make this meeting due
>to conflict or expense. All work will of course be published to the list for
>final approval and/or explanation.
>
>We unfortunately have to finalize the location and dates by the 29th of
>December so, please get any further offers of hosting the meeting to us as
>soon as possible. Our initial delays were due to getting the problem
>statement into LC. Please don't forget to send any final comments to the
>list for inclusion. Spencer Dawkins has also graciously taken the token to
>check the grammar and readability of the document. Cutoff of the LC is the
>31st of Dec.
>
>Many thanks and apologies for the confusion.
>
>-DWard, Alain
>
>On 12/20/05 11:50 AM, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>As I already indicated a few days ago by private email, I oppose to those
>>dates.
>>
>>The reason is very simple. There has not been a democratic and fair/open way
>>to propose several dates so the participants interested, and especially
>>those that have been contributing more during the last 2 years or so, can
>>try to make a match which is convenient for as many as them as possible.
>>
>>I already suggested in Vancouver to the co-chairs that we need to plan ahead
>>candidate dates and venue (at that time Hong Kong was suggested). I was
>>ignored, and I was polite to avoid coming into the mailing list to raise the
>>situation for the benefit of all and clearly that has been not a good
>>decision from my side.
>>
>>Basically I¹ve proposed the following dates:
>>    
>>
>>>>>>- 26-27, January
>>>>>>- 30-31, January
>>>>>>- 1-3, February
>>>>>>- 16-17, February
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>As you can see, the first of them is right after the actual proposal (the
>>idea was having this meeting before middle of Feb anyway).
>>
>>Of course, if we want to have a good meeting, clearly we will like to have
>>all the participants with candidate solution, otherwise, the meeting
>>discussion will need to be repeated across the list for the missing
>>candidate solutions, and it means that we will not achieve the meeting goals
>>of moving faster.
>>
>>Furthermore, according to latest review of the IETF TAO document
>>(draft-hoffman-taobis-01.txt) the Interim meetings:
>>"Location and timing need to allow fair access for all participants". This
>>seems to follow the idea of RFC2418 on this topic.
>>
>>Similarly, http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt (IESG
>>guidance on interim IETF Working Group meetings and conference calls),
>>summarize that they must be scheduled (location/timing) with fair access for
>>all WG participants.
>>
>>This has *NOT* been the case. The mistake of the lack of planning, when it
>>could have been done, has broken the fair access to the meeting for all WG
>>participants. Also, planning definitively will have impacted positively in
>>the review of the problem statement document towards the last call, which
>>was a prerequisite in order to convey into this meeting.
>>
>>I hope we can now look, open and democratically, into candidate dates for
>>all the interested participants to arrange this.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>De: "Durand, Alain" <[e-mail]>
>>Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>>Fecha: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:53:17 -0500
>>Para: <[e-mail]>, David Ward <[e-mail]>
>>Conversación: Softwire Interim Meeting
>>Asunto: [Softwires] Softwire Interim Meeting
>>
>>As announced in Vancouver, we are going to hold a softwire interim meeting
>>in January.
>>The agenda will be the analysis of candidate solutions against the softwire
>>problem statement
>>currrently in last call.
>>
>>It will be in California, Bay Area, most probably at Cisco in San Jose, the
>>week of Jan 23rd to 27th.
>>
>>We are looking at a 2 day meeting and we have a choice of either:
>>a) Monday 23rd, Tueday 24th
>>b) Tuesday 24th, Wednesday 25th
>>
>>Please let the chairs know if you have any strong preference for either of
>>those options
>>by the end of this week.
>>
>>I will announce the definitive dates and exact location on Monday next week.
>>
>>  - Alain & David.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Softwires mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Softwires mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>
>
>  
>



_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires