IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Conflict Clarity

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 28 June 2019 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 A92C0120401 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 gdJf8JgzrI2L for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A80F91200F9 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D8B3004A7 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 3y1qtBTdC7Uv for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 162F13002C1 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B7D0DC1A-1AA5-405D-9F44-7D6DE91704E9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: WG Conflict Clarity
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:40:22 -0400
References: <CAMMESsyxUbrVnV71wO-+-R-xNsPagdZStouWG9UsjBamz_0yOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyxUbrVnV71wO-+-R-xNsPagdZStouWG9UsjBamz_0yOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <82B66316-F545-4122-83DB-0FC6D01EF1A3@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/qH1s5wtDFR3MNGI_ScsWwWQNafA>
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 16:40:27 -0000

I really like this approach.  I think it will be better than the current situation, but I will not be surprised if further refinement is needed in the future.

Russ


> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> 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).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email