Subject: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:31:24 -0800

Tim,

> Tim Chown wrote:
> Could we at least not get a BoF session scheduled

In which area? Did you find an AD to go for a BOF that would obviously
conflict with multi6? Having a meeting for the purpose of having a
meeting does not do any good to anybody.

Little reminder for those that were not present: The last multi6 meeting
happened in Salt Lake in 2001, at my request. After 15 or 20 minutes out
of the 1-hour window the meeting was over and nothing was done, which
has not changed since. I do not see the point of having another SLC-like
meeting, flat out a waste of time.

Michel.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:19:42 +0200 (EET)

> meeting does not do any good to anybody.

You can forget about a BoF IMO.  If multi6 is not good, it could be 
disbanded and new one created, or..

> has not changed since. 

.. we could, for example:

 - change the management [ie. chair(s)], or
 - change the w.g. members [ie. mostly ignore input from some members], or
 - settle the worst past grievances and grow up

> I do not see the point of having another SLC-like

In my agenda, 20 minutes out of an IETF meeting is probably not waste of 
time, no matter how I look at it.  Of course, if one only is interested in 
multi6, that may be a problem, but then again I'd be questioning the 
participation in the IETF anyway.

-- 
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: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:08:39 +0000

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

Given the 6+ hours of ipv6mh sessions in Atlanta, I see no problem filling
a 1 hour (or more) slot with multi6 discussion.   There have been at least
1,000 posts to ipv6mh (and multi6) since Atlanta.   So I would not be worried
at all about running out of steam inside an hour :)

Of course a productive meeting is another matter.  That means we have to
approve or ditch the requirements draft, approve a new charter, and get real
progress moving...

Tim