> -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Jul 17, 2008, at 24:31 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > > I'm also very surprised SIP can be scheduled in conflict with any > > other RAI WG, especially a brand new one. :( > > All the RAI groups that requested more than one session had their > second session scheduled in conflict with another meeting.
Having the second slot of a multi-slot WG meeting conflict with another WG is missing the point if the other WG it conflicts with is not a multi-slot one. What it's doing then is penalizing the other WG. For example, it is unfair to DRINKS that SIP conflicts with it - *DRINKS* didn't ask for two slots. To reiterate what I've posted on the RAI mailing list, I grok the overlap problem, I think. What I suggest, though, is that the overlap decision be implemented differently. Instead of just forcing any RAI WG that needs 2 slots to have its second slot conflict, choose the conflicts based on topic relativity. One proposal I posted was to break the groups into topic threads, such that different threads could conflict but not with the globally relevant groups (like SIP). Let me put it a different way - what if the second slot for SIP conflicted with P2PSIP? -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
