Re: [Taps] finishing things

+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