RE: WG Conflict Clarity

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro,

This looks like a good idea, but seems to be missing something that could be rather useful when push comes to shove in dealing with conflicts  – a Doodle-like ability to tag each conflict as “unavoidable” vs. “If need be” [1].  The latter is for conflicts that are inconvenient but not fatal (e.g., as a chair of a multi-chair WG, I can step out for 10-15 minutes to go do/say something in another WG meeting if necessary, but that’s not preferable).

[1] https://help.doodle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012150093-How-do-I-vote-if-need-be-on-a-poll-

Thanks, --David

From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 10:27 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: WG Conflict Clarity


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
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).