On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 20:36:16 +0000, Liz Flynn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi RTGWG and SIDROPS chairs and participants,
I was going to say: "SO UNREASONABLE!" :) but .. nope, this is totes reasonable. I think I (at least) just keep clicking the 'get conflicts from last', because who has time for all that typing?? :) I'll try to do better. -chris > > In the IETF 115 meeting survey six respondents called out RTGWG and SIDROPS > when answering Q19, “How many times did you have a conflict between two > sessions that were scheduled in the same time slot?" However, to date, these > groups have not listed each other as Conflicts to Avoid in the Session > Request tool. > > As we start to plan for IETF 116, we are asking you to consider this feedback > and update your Conflicts to Avoid as appropriate. If you need assistance, > the Secretariat is happy to make updates in the Datatracker on your behalf, > but we do need clear guidance on what changes to make, and how to record any > new conflicts (i.e. chair conflict, technology overlap or key participant > conflict). > > Finally, we’d like to remind everyone that the wg mailing list receives a > copy of each session request, and we encourage you to review the noted > Conflicts to Avoid at the time of request, so that you can reach out to the > working group chairs if you feel something is missing or incorrect. > > > Thank you, > > Liz > IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
