Re: Why Interim Meetings?

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

Here's the deal.  I have not heard anything regarding the charter, hence we
are still not an IETF WG.  I've been trying to balance "jumping the gun" on
an IETF decision (as that may have a negative impact) with leaving enough
time to make this meeting happen.

Without an IETF acceptance of the charter, I believe that it would be
improper to have a *closed door* meeting as this would give the appearance
of a small group trying to push through a "special interest" through the
standards body.

Another reason that I feel that a closed door meeting would send the wrong
message is that we would be vulnerable to a charge that we didn't invite
folks from a wide enough pool of interested parties.  As our effort has not
been publicized on an IETF sanctioned channel (ietf-announce,
www.ietf.org), some folks could argue that we haven't gone far enough in
trying to get a broad base of input.

Mind you, I am saying this as an IETF process puppet. (;))

To put this in perspective, there are two influences here.  One is the IETF
desire to arrive at consensus through the right means and produce a
protocol specification - this is a process I can quantify (if not fully
explain).  The other group desire is the need to hurry along.  Although I
know of this desire, I can't say I can quantify it in sufficient detail to
help me negotiate our way through the IETF process.  What I am asking here
is for more information from folks quantifying why this effort should be
"sped up."  If you want to send me this off-list, that's fine.  For what it
is worth, if I know of deadlines, I may be able to use this when working
the process.  (I can't promise that it would help, but if y'all are willing
to let me know, I'd like to hear something more than rumors.)

I do think that dynamic interaction (whether face-to-face or via phone) is
beneficial at this point.  I just don't want to jeopardize WG status
establishment.

At 10:57 AM -0500 1/18/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 06:04 PM 1/12/2001 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>I believe that this is the consensus on the meetings so far:
>
>What is the final plan?  If there is to be an interim meeting, people need
>to know the logistics.
>
>If the meeting is for Design Team work, then it is closed.  That is, it is
>by invitation only.  That is the nature of design teams.
>
>If the meeting is a full working group meeting, then there needs to be
>significant advance notice and an agenda, so people can determine what work
>will be done at the meeting.
>
>d/


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.