Excellent point. Suppose at a minimum we assign an owner to each issue
to propose and socialize a resolution? If it’s already known or
obvious, can the folks preparing for Tuesday’s meeting put names of
nominal owners by issues?
On 16 Nov 2019, at 22:37, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
+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
