Re: They're already calling for 53rd IETF Meetings

[Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>]

Perhaps longer than one hour.  In SLC, it seemed like we had to rush 
through without being able to bring some topics to a reasonable 
conclusion.  I think we also started a little late and the next group 
didn't give us any spare time.

Dan


Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Edward Lewis [mailto:lewis@tislabs.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:56 PM
>>To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
>>Cc: Edward Lewis; ietf-provreg@cafax.se; brunner@nic-naa.net
>>Subject: Re: They're already calling for 53rd IETF Meetings
>>
>>
>>At 7:37 PM -0500 1/17/02, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland 
>>Maine wrote:
>>
>>>In my opinion, a time slot in Minneapolis would be time well spent.
>>>
>>Does anyone else feel the need for a meeting?  I am not 
>>disputing Eric's
>>reasons, but I'd like to hear from a wider set of people.
>>
>>Are folks holding off a decision until they see new (already promised)
>>drafts and/or versions?
>>
>
>I intend to send the updated documents to the I-D administrator some time
>tomorrow.  Assuming no one finds that I did anything stupid or counter to
>what we've covered in the last call, I believe that the documents are ready
>to be sent to the IESG.  It would be nice if they could be last-called by
>the IESG prior to the March meeting, and if that happens we might have some
>additional topics for discussion.
>
>I'd prefer to see a more thorough description of Eric's suggested topics
>sent to the mailing list before rendering an opinion on their suitability as
>agenda items.  We might be able to have a more thoughtful discussion if we
>have something to look at ahead of time.
>
>Anyway, it sounds like it might be wise to reserve a meeting slot just to be
>on the safe side.
>
>-Scott-
>