WG Conflict Clarity
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 28 June 2019 14:27 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A33120316; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7TKIpidJcFcV; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EB4612033D; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id e3so11047167edr.10; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vstqYFN3BX7/rX/iE5kzZBN30jlZG0K3kOu7Ldg4s/k=; b=TYIVese93hxoK0gg3ttcUQ+LFDY2zhNlLDhRwxJ1K60kIG0wmd+iQK1yTw4Iotv8lt +2kRo/Q06KUisK8iUgRBMNqBddAoccqEh3mp5XIHCXnIVzjJE9x1aDYqtg09M1jKl3Av ICRrQrTeDfMTiVKRFs1fnr7IOUKRDgdC/pdIx8hacdxgcGWuI0C/VMOBlaiE6fVkQ6j2 ENnx4gnw/mkOrgGX1mPlsozIQ61T8zvNA7ztlRKHAVSt8WMTVhdYxgAdKpkoMBe3K9kN y9E9Yq4v1UnPui9fSD8Hpo55pdT8gmIN81kSXkyQwx+lIKFKcX30YKbbe5PEjHUefx58 bz+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vstqYFN3BX7/rX/iE5kzZBN30jlZG0K3kOu7Ldg4s/k=; b=n2d7uDsFExFET86X4l7Vw9LdQMcVb3nUOoqG+oputLl5Rr6+RCD4qheBs2oFJZTXjL NsHgZlHOx6sVB1TWGmEDwMSh3HufjDe01mrd2SYG2mN59rZXNM2a7NSLWQRawPR1N0jv YkUQKXNgPHrr9BIjaT5WnxxNPmoD3ScEJVe2SVGk24iDfS+bNVfX7JoZ2B6Mld2UKu10 gGUtMoHdQxQMPM7Np9kpifjY+OQbDioZSTJkRl9sobPS/uKJPlGzUIsI1RhE22PCkrEf NfibrLArc4fxzNhCjKAlNviZVklTqXOHjYY6nulEIZUgRcP9ObxxO1xHLe61DMqJxALx 3AKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUjTF6mn+MWpiWPW6s/xW1gXtno6/hu2NWXm/n1muqm5+G8zJUG bJ/tksAsdIQLRlpaboIXB0MzLvEnZ9x/uX90qGu5Hw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzxlodGuXTfJzLceWN+fP9mTeN8qOrYjZLkrBrYcTbkImHdywo3QWnVZGRQzoaIRL/qvZcmdLkBXM2pkm2ZDzA=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ca49:: with SMTP id j9mr12177504edt.148.1561732021693; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:00 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:27:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyxUbrVnV71wO-+-R-xNsPagdZStouWG9UsjBamz_0yOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: WG Conflict Clarity
To: wgchairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000632f87058c6312c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/TApt-izFF-Mv8o2NjrShO_1X_R8>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:27:25 -0000
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).
- WG Conflict Clarity Alvaro Retana
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Paul Wouters
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Salz, Rich
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Aaron Falk
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Fred Baker
- RE: WG Conflict Clarity Black, David
- Re: [irsg] WG Conflict Clarity Melinda Shore
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Russ Housley
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Alvaro Retana
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Michael Richardson
- RE: WG Conflict Clarity MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Alvaro Retana
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Wes Hardaker
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Fred Baker
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Sean Turner
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Alvaro Retana
- Re: WG Conflict Clarity Alvaro Retana