Subject: RE: Agenda is still incomplete

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:28:37 +0100

> Here's the goal:
> 
>    The final 'planned' agenda for an IETF meeting must
>    be posted no later than 14 days before the start of the
>    conference.  Scheduled meetings may be cancelled after this
>    point, but not added, and may only be moved in exceptional 
>    situations (decided on a case-by-case basis).

I do not think we have ever moved meetings just for the fun of
it, and I also think late agenda adjustments are usually done
based on careful considerations. That's common sense that works.

Having the final* agenda out no later than 14 days before the
meeting sounds reasonable, I think. However, I do not think we
should not allow for sessions to be added after that, if there
are empty slots and a WG suddenly finds out it needs more time.
Of course, that should only happen in exceptional cases, but I
do not think we should have a strict rule against it.

[* - The agenda will always be subject to potential late changes]

/L-E

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:21:57 +0200

> based on careful considerations. That's common sense that works.

Right.

> do not think we should have a strict rule against it.

I agree.

With some of the recent discussions on this list, I get a
feeling that we are moving towards a situation where the
deadlines for I-D submission, agenda slots, and WG-00 draft
approval are a week after the previous meeting. Hmm...
if the I-D deadline was on the Thursday during the previous
meeting, then people could print out the next IETF's
drafts and read them on their way home ;-)

It would certainly have been useful to get the agenda out
sooner this time. But it seemed this had more to do with
how difficult the scheduling problem was than late input
from the chairs. I appreciate the difficult work that
the secretariat is doing in the agenda. I don't really
have any input on how that process could go faster, except
that earlier hotel booking would probably help a bit.
The only request I have is that if possible, the agenda
should be frequently updated and posted to the public.

--Jari

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:36:24 +0200 (EET)

> should be frequently updated and posted to the public.

Another constructive comment:  I think the draft agendas should say, 
up front, which WG(s) have not yet been scheduled but have requested 
the session and will be in a later version of the agenda.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:27:04 -0700

>>based on careful considerations. That's common sense that works.

I didn't mean to suggest it wasn't.  

>>do not think we should have a strict rule against it.

I don't agree that it's okay to add meetings after the final 
agenda is published.  This is extremely inconsiderate to people 
who need to make travel plans or "external" meeting plans.

>drafts and read them on their way home ;-)

I don't think a stable agenda for 14 days (or even 21 days!)
is an unreasonable request.  I don't think we should dismiss the
problem with this type of absurd counter-argument.

>should be frequently updated and posted to the public.

How do multiple unstable updates help?

>--Jari

Andy

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:24:27 -0800

> [* - The agenda will always be subject to potential late changes]

I agree.  This seems like a reasonable compromise.  

--aaron