IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Conflict Clarity

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 28 June 2019 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 EFE8B12080F for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 K3gFX5QlJbDA for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BB2A120813 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF0238183; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF020AEA; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:17:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Conflict Clarity
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyxUbrVnV71wO-+-R-xNsPagdZStouWG9UsjBamz_0yOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESsyxUbrVnV71wO-+-R-xNsPagdZStouWG9UsjBamz_0yOQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:17:15 -0400
Message-ID: <10658.1561749435@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/rfBTo65aOQaA6QZz3dM8jynHX3g>
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 19:17:27 -0000

Thank you for this, I think it is a good improvement.

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > - 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

Given two WG, "A" and "B" with chairs "A1", "A2" and "B1" and "B2"

If A1==B1, that's clearly a chair conflict, as the chair can't be in both
places.

If A1 is a Key Participant in group B, what kind of conflict is that?

Is it a Chair Conflict for A and a Key Participant conflitct for B?
Or is it also a Chair Conflict?

Would Technology Overlap conflicts be explicitely stated in WG charters?
(Often they say, "will coordinate with WG XYZ" already)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email