Wes, On Mar 22, 2012, at 2:43 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> I'm sorry to harp on this Sandy, and I appreciate your apology, but frankly I > think this communications breakdown is far larger than whether you > accidentally missed a bit of the letter of the law on scheduling process > because of timezones and missed email addresses, so I want to make sure that > what I believe to be the real problem is addressed. > > How is it that these interim meetings have been scheduled without soliciting > the WG for acceptable dates PRIOR to setting the date? > > How did you determine that an(other) interim was necessary and the > appropriateness of the date chosen? I gather that consensus to hold an > interim or when/where it is held is not strictly required[*], but it seems > odd to me that the WG list wouldn't be involved in the discussion until the > mandatory notification deadline. > > In fairness to the chairs, the NANOG interim's timing and location were more > self-explanatory, which is why I didn't bring this up before. Also, I should > have posted about my travel schedule conflict as soon as I saw the 3/7 > announcement, but that announcement was an invite to a webex session, > implying at least to me that things were already scheduled, rather than > soliciting feedback regarding the date, so I let it go until I saw others > raising questions about the scheduling. > > So while we're making notes for next time, I believe that this process should > start with "dear WG, an interim meeting has been requested to discuss > $topic(s). Here are some candidate dates [and locations]. Please respond with > feedback." > This obviously has to happen well enough prior to the candidate dates to > ensure that you have the proper time to work through the process, so if 4 > weeks notification are necessary, that discussion probably has to start at 6 > weeks out. > > > * From http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html : > "Area Directors will advise the Working Group Chair on interim face-to-face > meeting location, timing, and other aspects of the proposed meeting that with > a goal of not unfairly favoring some subset of the potential participants or > not unfairly biasing the working group discussions. Working Group Chairs will > evaluate the proposed conference call or jabber session logistics for similar > fairness concerns, consulting with Area Directors as necessary to resolve any > concerns raised by potential participants." > > I'm wondering if perhaps the above needs to be amended to recommend/require > discussion on the WG list? Anyone have opinions on that? I second your comment on the need to discuss in the mailing list timing and location of interim meeting previous to any formal process to start. When I first saw the webex invite for a meeting in late March I thought it was related with the collaboration tools for the normal IETF meeting. Roque > Wes George > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Murphy, Sandra >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:38 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [sidr] SIDR Interim 24/March is CANCELLED >> >> In the flurry of apologetic emails that preceeded and followed this >> announcement, I did not apolgize to the working group. >> >> This was my strictly my bungle, in two different directions. >> >> First, I announced the meeting to the sidr mailing list within the time frame >> required by process. The bungle was that I did not copy the iesg-secretary >> as >> I MEANT to do and I KNEW is required by process. I noticed this myself the >> next week, but too late to meet the required deadline. I informed the iesg- >> secretary. They sent the announcement and complaints of process violation >> came in immediately. >> >> Second, I announced the agenda as is required by process one week ahead of >> time, by my local time zone. However, due to the time of day and time zone >> differences, it was reckoned the next day in other time zones. >> >> --Sandy, the apologetic wg co-chair >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
