-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/20/12 12:04 PM, Samuel Weiler wrote: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, David Harrington wrote: > >> FYI. The IESG decided the SIDR Interim should be cancelled >> because it didn't meet the deadlines. > > Thank you for the clarification that this was an IESG decision, not > just Stewart's. > > I still find the explanation wanting and would like to see a > clarification. As I pointed out earlier, the "missed" agenda > deadline is so arguable as to be laughable -- indeed, the SIDR list > archive shows the agenda as a Saturday, 17 March message but with a > time stamp in the wee hours of Sunday morning UTC. From that, I > guess that it was still Saturday in her local timezone when the > chair sent the agenda. And the other point cited, being the > missend of the original announcement, was quite reasonably > explained by Stewart on Friday. > > Are there perhaps other reasons for your decision that haven't been > stated? > > To be clear: I'm not disagreeing with the final decision. Indeed, > there may well be good reasons to cancel this interim meeting. But > the explanations offered to date don't hold water.
Hi Sam, As an outgoing IESG member with no dogs in this fight, let me point you to the interim meeting rules: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html In particular: "Advance notification" and "process" require prior approval of the face-to-face meeting by the relevant Area Director and publication of an announcement on the ietf-announce list. "Advance notification" and "process" require prior approval by the Working Group Chair for the conference call (either audio or video) or jabber session and publication of an announcement on the ietf-announce list. Face-to-face meetings must be announced at least four weeks prior to the meeting. Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least two weeks prior to the event. The announcement for the SIDR virtual interim meeting appeared on the ietf-announce list on March 15th (please note that posting to the WG list is not sufficient according to the text just quoted): http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg10034.html Given that the meeting was to occur on March 24th, the two-week advance notification requirement for virtual meetings was simply not met. As noted, I experienced a similar glitch with an IRI WG meeting last year. This kind of thing is unfortunate, but if we're going to ask some working groups to abide by the rules, then all of them should have to. Respectfully, Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9o6rwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vydZACdHGk9Nj6SPsUXc/Yxo4mmKGA/ jesAoLTXnvgXJpJWLBO5vHDziWG1goAo =xgCk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
