Re: WG Conflict Clarity

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Makes sense to me, and confirms the ways I have been using the field - if some has an active role in my meeting (presenter, chair, etc), then I have listed their other working groups as conflicts. This will just make that more explicit.

The one issue I would raise is that I request a meeting slot soon after an IETF meeting for the next, but develop the agenda close to the next, and as a result know my presenters at the later date. There is still room for error...

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Jun 28, 2019, at 3:27 PM, 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).