+1; we should allocate time on our agenda here to actually set the schedule for these interims, to avoid the ”let’s think about that later” problem.
Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Nov 2019, at 15:13, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think this is a great idea. > > Cheers, > Michael > > >> On Nov 16, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hey Working Group, >> >> Before we meet on Tuesday I wanted to put an idea on the table that I think >> will shape our wg discussion. What do you think of setting a goal of WGLC >> for our three in-progress docs before the March IETF? This would require >> increasing wg activity, for example, having monthly calls to consider and >> resolve open issues. I think we’re reaching a point where wg engagement is >> starting to drop and I’m concerned if we delay closing out the docs there >> will be few people engaged to do a serious review of the results. A lot of >> work has gone into TAPS and I think we should aspire to finish strong. >> Comments? I’m especially interested to hear what the doc editors think. >> >> --aaron >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
