Lucy,

We currently have only 5 WG accepted work items. IETF meeting-time is a
precious and scarce resource that we try to optimize for all attendees.

Regarding the purpose of the IntArea meeting, please refer to the charter.
A presentation like yours falls in the secondary role of the group, and for
planning and other purposes it will be treated as such.

Juan-Carlos

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote:

> *Hi Juan-Carlos,*
>
>
>
> *Could you request a long time for the WG meeting. The WG has 9 items and
> one hour meeting; it is too short. I doubt if I will get a time in next
> meeting if it is like this time.  Allocating many 5min talks in a meeting
> means no question at all. Is it the WG meeting intend?*
>
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Lucy*
>
>
>
> *From:* Juan Carlos Zuniga [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 28, 2016 7:44 PM
> *To:* Lucy yong
> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] IETF97 Minutes
>
>
>
> Lucy,
>
>
>
> We always arrange the agenda by Internet Area announcements, WG drafts,
> individual drafts that have been presented/discussed before, and new
> individual drafts - in that strict order.
>
>
>
> Your presentation was the last on the list, and the reason for not
> presenting was that we ran out of time. It is not the first time that this
> happens and one or more presentations are not given. There were several
> questions on items that have been pending for a while, so we gave
> preference to people asking questions (including you) over presentation
> time.
>
>
>
> If you want to present your draft in the future, you can request time
> again for the next meeting. However, we will still allocate agenda time in
> the same strict order. If on the other hand what you want is to get
> technical feedback from the group, you should rely on the mailing list and
> not the meeting time, which tends to be very limited.
>
>
>
> Juan-Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> *Hi Juan and Wassim,*
>
>
>
> *It was my surprise that my talk time was cut out due to whatever reason.
> I informed you very early about this new draft coming and asked 10min for
> the talk, then the talk was cut to 5min and then not given a chance to talk
> at all in the meeting. We worked very hard to make the deadline for this
> new draft/topic in order to get people comments/suggestions on this topic.
> I don’t know what is your rule to arrange the meeting and talks. However
> the reason you gave after the meeting is not acceptable.*
>
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Lucy*
>
>
>
> *From:* Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Juan
> Carlos Zuniga
> *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2016 3:22 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [Int-area] IETF97 Minutes
>
>
>
> Here they are:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-97-intarea/
>
>
>
> Thanks to Ian Farrer (and other Etherpad scribes) for taking notes during
> the meeting.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Juan Carlos & Wassim
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to