Subject: Re: WG Conflict Clarity

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:38:12 -0400

> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:38, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Please reply with any comments.
> 
>    I think this is a good idea.
> 
> So do I 

+1

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:41:07 -0700

Hi!

Thank you for the feedback and the support for this initiative.

As the implementation moves forward, we will keep the list informed.

Alvaro.

On June 28, 2019 at 10:27:00 AM, Alvaro Retana ([email-masked])
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.

Thanks!!

Alvaro (for the IESG).