On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:50:28PM +0000, Roger D Carney wrote: >> tings during the week: a working session (90-120 minutes) earlier in the >> week and; a status session (90 minutes) later in the week, preferably two or >> three days after the working session (e.g. Mon-Wed or Mon-Thur). > > I rarely make the sessions (I usually have a conflict), but I think > you're going to have a very hard time convincing the IESG to give the > WG 180 or more minutes. That's a _lot_ of agenda time. > > I'm also a little sad that a "status" session could take anything > approaching 90 minutes. Even the IAB and IESG have figured out that > most of what passes for status should not show up in presentations, > but should be in emails distributed in advance so that people can > discuss topics that arise as a result. Couldn't that be cut down? > > A
I think "status session" doesn't accurately describe what transpired. It was more like "lightening discussion". Each draft author, sans slides, gave a two or three sentence "here the issues" statement, and then mike lines formed with lots of back and forth. I thought it was quite productive. That's my opinion anyway. Maybe others perceived it differently. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
