Ah. That doesn't sound like "status" at all. More like "problem solving". Sounds fabulous. Probably wise to present it to the IESG that way :-)
-- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On Sep 1, 2017, at 12:25, Andrew Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
