I agree that TAPS in particular is working well in the interim meetings, and
we’ll likely be more productive in that forum, when we’re not competing for
author’s time in other groups.
If we had proposals for new work and presentations from folks not already in
the interims, it’d make sense to m
This page lists all meetings and proceedings (incl. interims), so I don't
really see that issue:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/taps/meetings/
On 26.05.20, 18:22, "Taps on behalf of tom petch" wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Martin Duke martin.h.d...@gmail.com
Sent: 26
Hi Martin, hi all,
I agree that your points listed below are usually good reasons for a wg
meeting. In case of taps I think we reached a working mode where we really try
to fix github issue and get the docs ready for wglc. This might be less
interesting for “tourists” and we probably won’t real
- Original Message -
From: Martin Duke martin.h.d...@gmail.com
Sent: 26/05/2020 17:09:58
Frankly, I can’t think of a good reason to do so.
IETF meetings have a standing that interim do not, with proceedings,
minutes, slide decks and so on. I wanted to know what happened in a WG in 10
>
> Frankly, I can’t think of a good reason to do so.
Although I don't have a strong opinion on this question, the reasons to
participate in 108 proper are:
- full support for meetecho, archiving, proceedings, etc
- more participation from "tourists" who have already adjusted their
schedules for
I'm OK during the weeek or to skip the next interim, as long as we keep
a couple of weeks clear either side of the IETF "meeting week:, so I
don't end up with the weeks of IETF meetings that happended last time.
Gorry
On 26/05/2020 15:42, Kyle Rose wrote:
Agreed 100%. Leslie and I are also ta
Agreed 100%. Leslie and I are also taking the approach for MOPS of an
interim in lieu of trying to cram our remote meeting into the official
single week for no good reason I can tell. We can schedule the meeting for
when it's convenient for participants, and probably also make it easier for
new fol
I agree
(says a man who didn’t get to do anything at all since our last interim :-(
but, still, …)
Cheers,
Michael
> On May 26, 2020, at 4:17 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
>
> Dear TAPS working group & ADs,
>
> Scheduling has begun for the online IETF-108 meeting in July. Should we
> request
Dear TAPS working group & ADs,
Scheduling has begun for the online IETF-108 meeting in July. Should we
request a meeting slot for IETF week? Frankly, I can’t think of a
good reason to do so. We’ve been making good progress with ~monthly
Webex sessions and my hope is to continue them. Tryin
