Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

[Ray Pelletier]

inline. John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 09:31 -0400 Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John, Thanks for the feedback. Responses in line. John C Klensin wrote: Ray, I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal list appears to have not been kept up to date: As the opening paragraph for the page ( http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html ) states: The information below has been submitted to the IETF Secretariat as a means of notifying readers of future events. Readers are requested to send in dates of events that are appropriate for this calendar section. Please send submissions, corrections, etc., to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> We are not staffed to monitor others' calendars and rely on others to submit and correct data Ray, This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that is good enough. If we have "must avoid" entities, then we ought to be establishing administrative<-> administrative liaisons/ contact points as well as technical ones, we ought to be proactively sending out lists and requesting updates before we make decisions, etc. I'm particularly concerned about the adjacency cases as well as the overlap ones -- when time-adjacent meetings need to occur, I believe we should be working actively with those other groups to have things be plausibly convenient, not waiting for announcements to come sailing over the wall in one direction or another. John, The process followed in the development of the 2008 - 2010 calendar was as you described. A Clash List of 34 organizations we Must (13) and Should (21) avoid was developed.  Calendar ver 00 was developed using historical dates as a template and then efforts were undertaken by Secretariat staff and through Liaisons to contact each organization, make them aware of our proposed dates and learn their dates for 2008 - 2010.  The calendar at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html reflects what was learned.  Few had yet calendared 2009 - 2010.  In version 01 the Must avoids have been avoided by at least 1 week, while some Should avoids could not be avoided.  Moreover adjacency cannot be avoided with 34 groups and 52 weeks. The fact that this list hasn't been kept current with regard to IETF site decisions is a pretty good indication of the problem with passively sitting around waiting for updates. IASA certainly can't claim that IETF didn't tell you. Passively sitting around might suggest that staff aren't busy and I can assure you that it absolutely not the case.  It was an oversight to which I and they will be more attentive. It may also be that, in critical, must-avoid, cases, IAB should be formally tasking the technical liaisons to be sure these lists are kept up to date, but that is, IMO, no substitute for staff-level coordination. The Liaisons were part of the process, although not as a formal tasking by the IAB.  This initiative has established new staff-level, two-way relationships which we expect to result in better maintenance of the calendar. Again, just my opinion, but I've tried to be in IETF meetings and meetings IETF has tasked me with attending, on opposite sides of the world, at the same time or nearly so, a few times too often. It is seriously inconvenient for the people involved and reflects very badly on the IETF. We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to reduce the inconvenience for you and others.  Best Ray john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf