Subject: RE: (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:18:33 -0800

>> Just curious, How many YEARS behind schedule do you plan
>> on being? Today's date is February 4, 2002.

> Vijay Gill wrote:
> Please try to restrain the hysterics to a minimum. Day jobs
> do sometimes come up and take a chunk of time out of our
> ietf efforts.

I have a day job, too. We already are six MONTHS behind and a
YEAR is twelve (12) MONTHS.

Michel.

---

From: Daniel Hagerty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:41:17 -0500

> From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
 > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:18:33 -0800
 >

    Which part of "keep the hysterics to a minimum" did you fail to
understand?

    Cajoling people about schedules on something they volunteer
towards isn't likely to make progress towards meeting "the schedule"
any easier.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:53:48 -0500

Michael,

	The fact that you have an "issues" list circulating on the list
is a pretty compelling argument that we don't have a document ready
for WG Last Call.  Now if the WG thinks those issues are now "resolved"
and they should be put into the document, that is fine, but such has
not been crystal clear to me at least.

	Normally an IETF document is not ready for WG Last Call until
after the document has all updates and stops changing for weeks/months.

	And there is no requirement that an IETF WG ever meet in person.
Experience is that the more productive WGs often meet less in person,
because they are productive in using email.

Cheers,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 05:04:19 +0000

> YEAR is twelve (12) MONTHS.

if we spent the time working as opposed to shouting at eachother,
we might inch along faster.

day job overload can be worse for ops folk and wgs with heavy ops
components.  vendors are paid to influence standards, operators 
are not.

randy