Re: WG Conflict Clarity

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

As discussed before, the labels for the Type of Conflict will go live for
session requests for IETF 106.  The Secretariat will announce the opening
of the request period tomorrow.

You will notice the new options, as listed below.  Note that you will be
able to import the information from the last meeting, but the information
may not map as expected.  Please take a minute to consider the new
categories.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On July 12, 2019 at 2:41:07 PM, Alvaro Retana ([e-mail])
wrote:

Hi!

Thank you for the feedback and the support for this initiative.

As the implementation moves forward, we will keep the list informed.

Alvaro.

On June 28, 2019 at 10:27:00 AM, Alvaro Retana ([e-mail])
wrote:

Dear WG Chairs:

As all of you know, a conflict-free IETF agenda is virtually impossible to
achieve.  Yet, the Secretariat always pulls off a wonderful job in dealing
with all the constraints.

The inconsistent use of priorities to indicate conflicts is an issue that
comes up every time the agenda is worked on: the intent is not always clear
to the Secretariat, the ADs...or sometimes even the Chairs.

To address this issue and provide Conflict Clarity, we are planning to
replace the priority options with an explicit indication of the type of
conflict.

- Chair Conflict: to indicate other WGs the Chairs also lead, or will be
active participants in the upcoming meeting

- Technology Overlap: to indicate WGs with a related technology or a
closely related charter

- Key Participant Conflict (e.g., presenter, Secretary, etc.): to indicate
WGs with which key participation may overlap in the upcoming meeting

The Special Request field will continue to be available for more specific
needs.  Responsible AD Conflicts are already taken into consideration.


The result will be a clear representation of the needs of each WG.  We
intend for these changes to be effective in time for IETF 106.

Please reply with any comments.

Thanks!!

Alvaro (for the IESG).