Re: [Taps] finishing things

Excellent point.  Suppose at a minimum we assign an owner to each issue 
to propose and socialize a resolution?  If it’s already known or 
obvious, can the folks preparing for Tuesday’s meeting put names of 
nominal owners by issues?

On 16 Nov 2019, at 22:37, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:

> +1; we should allocate time on our agenda here to actually set the 
> schedule for these interims, to avoid the ”let’s think about that 
> later” problem.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 16 Nov 2019, at 15:13, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a great idea.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Working Group,
>>>
>>> Before we meet on Tuesday I wanted to put an idea on the table that 
>>> I think will shape our wg discussion. What do you think of setting a 
>>> goal of WGLC for our three in-progress docs before the March IETF? 
>>> This would require increasing wg activity, for example, having 
>>> monthly calls to consider and resolve open issues. I think we’re 
>>> reaching a point where wg engagement is starting to drop and I’m 
>>> concerned if we delay closing out the docs there will be few people 
>>> engaged to do a serious review of the results. A lot of work has 
>>> gone into TAPS and I think we should aspire to finish strong. 
>>> Comments? I’m especially interested to hear what the doc editors 
>>> think.
>>>
>>> --aaron
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taps mailing list
>>> Taps@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taps mailing list
>> Taps@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps