Subject: [Ecrit] ECRIT Meeting Agenda -- Important Update

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:35:59 +0100

Hi all,

based on a request by Cullen we had to remove our second meeting slot. 
This was the 1 hour slot for the discussion with the IEEE regarding
their emergency services architecture.

This was necessary due to overall scheduling problems. Cullen suggested 
to still have our meeting with the IEEE but todo it during lunch time or 
any other day.
I will send a separate mail to solicit feedback from the group.

Ciao
Hannes & Marc

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:35 -0800

I know the WG could use more meeting time but I have tried to balance  
the time between the WGs and to not have conflicts that require  
authors of WG drafts to be in two places at once. For IETF 68 Jon and  
I ended up significantly reducing the request agenda time for five  
WGs as the only way to resolve the conflicts. I have received an  
incredible amount of feedback that people want a schedule relatively  
free of bad conflicts. I try to look at the work that needs to happen  
in each WG at the next meeting and where WGs are in their lifecylce  
to help allocate the time between WGs. For example, I gave the two  
new WGs more time than I wold expect them to need in future meetings  
because is is their first meeting and they have a lot of primordial  
soup that they need to brew into some beginnings of consensus.

Here's the really important thing - Jon and I make mistakes in the  
way we allocate time. The only way we can fix theses is by hearing  
from folks about  when we make them. I am sure that at IETF 69, I am  
going to be reducing the time requests for several WGs and I need  
community input on how to do that. Telling me that ECRIT really  
needed ore time, or telling me they did manage to get the critical  
work done in time is useful - more useful would be telling me that  
you think the right overall balance for RAI would have been to take  
time from WG X and add it to WG Y. I really don't want a flame war on  
WG X is better than Y but if you want to send Jon and I private email  
(or on the RAI list) about how we can do a better job of balancing  
time, Jon and I will work to both follow community consensus and to  
do the right thing for scheduling.

Thanks, and I' m sorry we don't have more time.

Cullen

On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> based on a request by Cullen we had to remove our second meeting  
> slot. This was the 1 hour slot for the discussion with the IEEE  
> regarding
> This was necessary due to overall scheduling problems. Cullen  
> suggested to still have our meeting with the IEEE but todo it  
> during lunch time or any other day.

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:05:52 +0100

Hi Cullen,
Hi all

what the working group members do not yet know is that our ECRIT slot is 
now down to 1 hour.
I wonder whether someone has a good idea what we should do to get our 
work done.
I could imagine that it might be good to have some face-to-face meetings 
during the week (e.g., on Sunday or in the evening) to discuss some open 
issues.

Ciao
Hannes

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> I ended up significantly reducing the request agenda time for five WGs 
> as the only way to resolve the conflicts. I have received an 
> in each WG at the next meeting and where WGs are in their lifecylce to 
> help allocate the time between WGs. For example, I gave the two new 
> WGs more time than I wold expect them to need in future meetings 
> Here's the really important thing - Jon and I make mistakes in the way 
> we allocate time. The only way we can fix theses is by hearing
> community input on how to do that. Telling me that ECRIT really needed 
> ore time, or telling me they did manage to get the critical work done 
> in time is useful - more useful would be telling me that you think the 
> right overall balance for RAI would have been to take time from WG X 
> and add it to WG Y. I really don't want a flame war on WG X is better 
> than Y but if you want to send Jon and I private email (or on the RAI 
> list) about how we can do a better job of balancing time, Jon and I 
> will work to both follow community consensus and to do the right thing 
> for scheduling.
>
>> suggested to still have our meeting with the IEEE but todo it during 
>> lunch time or any other day.

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:01:49 -0500

This doesn't make sense to me.  Forgoing the IEEE meeting is one thing, but
one hour?  We're trying to get LoST completely finished, we have -phonebcp
and -framework in progress, and we have several open issues that need some
discussion.  Having only one hour seems unreasonable.

90 minutes or two hours is more like it.

We'll have to have some more time.  Let's first figure out the way we get
the IEEE discussion done, and then get some more ecrit time.  I kind of
dislike trying to do it Sunday evening, but perhaps late afternoon would
work.  We will have a whole lot of jet lagged people though.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:06 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings
> Cc: ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT Meeting Agenda -- Important Update
> 
> Hi Cullen,
> Hi all
>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:03:48 +0100

Hi Brian,

there are two separate issues here:

* IEEE - ECRIT discussion
I had to remove the allocated 1 hour slot and try to find an alternative 
date for that discussion.
I have sent a separate mail about this issue.

* ECRIT meeting to discuss our charter items
Previously we always had a 2 hour slot and that gave us roughly enough 
time to discuss our items.
Now, we are down to 1 hour and I also saw difficulties to get our work 
done. If the schedule is kept unchanged then we need to figure out how 
we can meet with interested WG members to make some progress. It is 
obviously not the same as a WG meeting (unless ~120 people show up in 
the hotel bar to discuss ECRIT topics) but I do not have another 
proposal in mind.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:00:12 -0600

SIPPING gets TWO 2.5 hour slots (Mon 9-1130 and Fri 9-1130) - and 
ECRIT gets a 1 hour slot?

I agree with Brian - this doesn't make any sense, considering what 
ECRIT wants to finish before next meeting.

Hannes asked for a solution? Here's a thought:

How about we pick one of these two SIPPING slots and have an official 
or unofficial ECRIT meeting?  The ECRIT and SIPPING WG chairs can 
work out from which (new) slot ECRIT added on how there can be the 
fewest conflicting presos in SIPPING (from those given that ECRIT 
folks would and wouldn't be interested in).  This shouldn't be *too* 
hard (as a WG chair myself, I know how easy or hard this can be).

IMO, much - but not all(!) - of what's happening in SIPPING is of 
little or no interest to most of those attending ECRIT.  I'm not 
judging if this is a good thing or a bad thing.  However, the 
remaining schedule on Friday looks clean of conflicts wrt ECRIT too 
(i.e. no Apps, no other RAI, no TSV, etc)!

Unfortunately for the US folks (who like to leave early from IETFs), 
the (likely) best slot is Fri at 9am to cover what couldn't be done 
in the existing 1 hour slot.  I'm sure a room can be arranged by 
someone for this - if agreed to.

Comments

At 02:03 AM 2/25/2007, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>I had to remove the allocated 1 hour slot and try to find an 
>alternative date for that discussion.
>Previously we always had a 2 hour slot and that gave us roughly 
>enough time to discuss our items.
>Now, we are down to 1 hour and I also saw difficulties to get our 
>work done. If the schedule is kept unchanged then we need to figure 
>out how we can meet with interested WG members to make some 
>progress. It is obviously not the same as a WG meeting (unless ~120 
>people show up in the hotel bar to discuss ECRIT topics) but I do 
>not have another proposal in mind.
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>Brian Rosen wrote:

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:55:24 +0100

Hi James,

thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

That's indeed a possibility. We would have to find a room and figure out 
how the detailed agenda would look like.
I will try to approach the SIPPING chairs in order to figure out what 
they think about it.

Ciao
Hannes

James M. Polk wrote:
> or unofficial ECRIT meeting?  The ECRIT and SIPPING WG chairs can work 
> out from which (new) slot ECRIT added on how there can be the fewest 
> conflicting presos in SIPPING (from those given that ECRIT folks would 
> and wouldn't be interested in).  This shouldn't be *too* hard (as a WG 
> chair myself, I know how easy or hard this can be).
>
> the (likely) best slot is Fri at 9am to cover what couldn't be done in 
> the existing 1 hour slot.  I'm sure a room can be arranged by someone 
> for this - if agreed to.
>
> Comments
>
>
>> out how we can meet with interested WG members to make some progress. 
>> It is obviously not the same as a WG meeting (unless ~120 people show 
>> up in the hotel bar to discuss ECRIT topics) but I do not have 
>> another proposal in mind.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> Brian Rosen wrote:
>>>>> WGs
>>>>> way
>>>>> needed

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:15:28 +0100

Spencer made an additional suggestion, namely to schedule phone 
conferences before the IETF meeting to resolve some of the open issues.
That sounds good to me as well.

Ciao
Hannes