Re: [Tools-discuss] The future of "Interim" meetings

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 15 April 2020 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC27F3A0FCD for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 23:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJk2e0UP_cac for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 23:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BBC43A0FCA for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 23:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p548DCD70.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.205.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 492Cc557KmzyhP; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:48:21 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0486D87E-5655-4535-8D59-4BD56EE628E2@bangj.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:48:21 +0200
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 608626101.185605-641e1851fe5b759f2fd67b13501e1c7f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F259C97D-080C-49E7-92AC-B48D50ECEF2B@tzi.org>
References: <0486D87E-5655-4535-8D59-4BD56EE628E2@bangj.com>
To: Tom Pusateri <pusateri=40bangj.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/FOms0Ge8LsEJriSDyrDggvaMNEA>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] The future of "Interim" meetings
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:48:26 -0000

On 2020-04-15, at 02:44, Tom Pusateri <pusateri=40bangj.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm thinking of presenting these sessions in weekly collections and ignoring the current "meeting" classification with one session per meeting. I will create a pseudo meeting for "Week of April 13" and "Week of April 20", etc.

Works for me.

My thinking is that we are in the “107+” meeting up to April 28th, because those were all time slots assigned by the secretariat.  But this is not much less arbitrary than going per week, and it requires some additional input.  (But then, note that some WGs have two sessions in 107+, not necessarily in the same week, with a common agenda spanning the two sessions.)

Grüße, Carsten