Subject: [lemonade] Interim meeting - proposal # 2

From: "Glenn Parsons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:15:28 -0400

Folks,

I believe that a face-to-face meeting is critical to achieve timely progress
on our work.  I think sufficient people have indicated that they would come
to the face-to-face meeting to make it worthwhile.  Note that I
intentionally did not pick east or west coast so that we could meet in the
middle.

I also understand that some of you are unable to travel to such a meeting,
as a result I propose a combined face-to-face / remote conference.  That is,
those who cannot be present and are interested in the discussions can
participate via teleconference, jabber and even iChat/iSight (if someone
brings the equipment).

Further I propose a change in date to facilitate schedules:

   Thursday, May 13th   Nortel Networks Campus   Richardson, TX 

It has been suggested that we don't start until after lunch on Thursday and
finish up on Friday morning.  This allows people to stayover just one night,
and gives us a fresh review of the outcomes in the morning.

Let me know if this is agreeable this week and I will confirm it with our
AD.

Cheers,
Glenn.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:08:46 -0800

At 10:15 PM -0400 4/6/04, Glenn Parsons wrote:

>  It has been suggested that we don't start until after lunch on 
> Thursday and finish up on Friday morning.  This allows people to 
> stayover just one night, and gives us a fresh review of the 
> outcomes in the morning.

How about Tuesday and Wednesday May 11 and 12?  I have meetings on 
Thursday the 13th.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The idea that people know what they want is wrong.
They need to be pulled through the Web.
      --Laura Jennings, Vice President, Microsoft Network

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

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:45:18 -0500

>How about Tuesday and Wednesday May 11 and 12?  I have meetings on 

I just spoke to Randy, and so long as the meeting begins Thursday 
after lunch (i.e., 1pm CDT, which is the conclusion of the MMS 
teleconference he's on), he should be OK with the Thursday/Friday 
schedule.

That said, I want to add my voice to the few that you've heard 
already to ask, "Why exactly do we need an interim meeting?" Assuming 
we come to consensus on the push/pull question (which was deemed a 
requirement before the meeting even happens), what is it that we 
think will be accomplished at this meeting that won't happen on the 
mailing list, or at the most on an extended teleconference? I think 
we should see an agenda before deciding this is needed. I have no 
problem travelling down to TX (it's not a long flight from O'Hare to 
DFW and my department is glad to pick up the tab), but there are 
other folks who have clearly expressed that an interim meeting would 
be a pain to get to, and I'd like to hear more justification before 
we put them out.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:58:37 -0700

At 6:45 PM -0500 04/08/2004, Pete Resnick wrote:
>already to ask, "Why exactly do we need an interim meeting?" 
>Assuming we come to consensus on the push/pull question (which was 
>deemed a requirement before the meeting even happens), what is it 
>that we think will be accomplished at this meeting that won't happen 
>on the mailing list, or at the most on an extended teleconference? I 
>think we should see an agenda before deciding this is needed. I have 
>no problem travelling down to TX (it's not a long flight from O'Hare 
>to DFW and my department is glad to pick up the tab), but there are 

Speaking personally, I think it is needed to get the group focused 
again, and to
develop a game plan for tackling some of the issues that have lapsed into
dormancy while we've been discussing PUSH v. PULL.  There are a lot of items
on this working group's plate, and we've made no progress on most.  The IMAP
profile for Mobile devices, for one, just hasn't had focus. Getting
those back on the radar screen and a game plan to get them done seems worth
it to me.

Two cents worth, I hope,
				Ted

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:12:06 +0100

> those back on the radar screen and a game plan to get them done seems 

I agree with Pete that we need to discuss the agenda first.
Can we at least start with (the suggestions below are from the top of my 
head):
a) status of different documents and an estimation from editors when the 
updated versions will be published;
b) consolidated list of cons./pros for PUSH/PULL;
c) create a short questionnaire about PULL vs. PUSH and ask people to 
fill it in (and send replies directly to the responsible person, not to 
the mailing list). IMHO, some of the questions can be "are you 
implementor", "previous experience with implementing messaging systems", 
"do you prefer PUSH or PULL" and "what are the major 
advantages/disadvantages of both".

I personally don't see how the face-to-face meeting can help PUSH vs. 
PULL decision, as people who are unable to participate will most likely 
object to any decision made. Once the decision is made, the value of the 
face-to-face meeting will be increased (in my eyes).

>                 Ted

Alexey