Subject: notewell slide

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:34:38 -0500

Is there a canonical NOTEWELL *slide*? (PDF)

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:37:22 -0500

Michael,

> Is there a canonical NOTEWELL *slide*? (PDF)

https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt is available off the WG 
Chairs' page.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:38:21 -0500

> Is there a canonical NOTEWELL *slide*? (PDF)

Yes:
https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt

The WG chairs page is a good place to start looking for information.
The above is linked from it:
https://www.ietf.org/wg/chairs-page.html

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:00:21 -0500

On Nov 8, 2012, at 14:37, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt is available off the WG Chairs' page.

But that is the horrible one that looks like it has been designed to make sure nobody reads it.

There is a new, experimental one from Barry Leiba, but only app chairs are part of that experiment :-)
This is designed so you can actually read it out aloud.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:39:02 -0500

> make sure nobody reads it.

I wouldn't have described that as a design *goal*, but, well... yeah.

> This is designed so you can actually read it out aloud.

YOU LEAKED IT!

No, really, that's fine.  I sent it only to the App chairs because (1)
while it has IESG consensus and OK from IETF counsel, we're still
getting input from the community about it, and (2) I'm therefore not
sure how other ADs feel about trying it out yet.

It's late in the week at this point to experiment with it, but I hope
that by IETF 86 we'll be using it or something like it.  Not everyone
will think it's right, but when do we ever get any sort of consensus
that's less rough than a'a lava when we're talking about something
process related?

Barry