ACK - works for me, I'd love to add: intarea (as a contributor, and
TSVWG reviewer).
My own conflicts map to what you have:
First Priority: maprg tcpm iccrg tsvwg tsvarea
Second Priority: rmcat, quic
Gorry
On 17/04/2018, 16:22, Aaron Falk wrote:
Hi Folks-
We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings during
the IETF week. Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider:
* If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor or chair
in another wg, that is a first priority conflict
* If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or chair in
another wg, that is a second priority conflict
* If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to another wg
(which you feel you should attend), that *may* be a conflict
depending on how many priority of the work to TAPS.
* If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, that is not a
conflict (sorry!)
I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect)
understanding of current TAPS contributors. There’s been some
discussion that “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so
I’m hoping we can converge on just two.
Please send feedback. Thanks.
--aaron
First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
Second Priority: tcpinc mptcp saag mmusic tram tls irtfopen
OLD:
First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic
Second Priority: tcpinc nvo3 mptcp icnrg httpbis dots i2nsf saag
Third Priority: mmusic tram sacm mile ipwave cfrg
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
