RE: San Diego Agenda issues

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Adrian and Kireeti,

Thanks for initiating this discussion.

I think this is an important topic that the WG as a whole
should probably devote some CPU cycles to, and it would
be good to get more views.

To get things started, I am giving some comments and 
suggestions below, and in the next email.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:01 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: San Diego Agenda issues
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> At the risk of seeming petulant...
> 
> You CANNOT [RFC2119] have both all drafts discussed and a 
> reasonable length discussion on
> any draft.
> 
> After Seoul we were told in the strongest terms by WG 
> participants and by the ADs that we
> MUST facilitate discussion at the face-to-face meeting. Thirty 
> five-minute slots may fill
> the time, but will achieve nothing.

I looked at the Seoul meeting minutes, and do not see any 
lack of discussion on the drafts _that did make it_ to the
agenda and that were discussed there. 
(People may have had opinions about whether everything on the agenda 
should have been there in the first place, but whatever
was there seemed to be adequately discussed.)

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2004/msg00336.html

Quite to the contrary, the meeting minutes seem to suggest
that even 5-minute slots, if utilized correctly, provide plenty
of time for discussion of substantive issues.

So, can the participants and AD's who thought there was a 
problem _with the extent of discussion_ at the Seoul WG meeting
share their thoughts with the WG?

(Although, I would agree that _all_ slots being 5-minutes
is probably not a good idea.)

> We have made a draft agenda which is now full. We completely 
> understand that the work that
> you are doing in your drafts is more important than anything 
> anyone in the world is doing
> at the moment, but we do not understand how you propose to cover 
> your drafts on the agenda
> as it now stands.

> Of course, the chairs are only your humble servants, and if it is 
> the will of the WG to
> change the agenda that is fine with us so long as:
> - it fits within the priorities and milestones in the charter
> - it conforms to the requirements passed to us by the ADs
> - we do not end up with tiny slots and no discussion on any draft

I have some specific suggestions on how to improve the
current agenda; please see following email.

Also, I think several people on the ML have given their inputs
in the recent past, but I don't recall seeing any response to those 
notes.

> So, ask yourselves:
> - why does my draft need discussion in SD?
> - why can't the discussion be on the list?
> - what will I recommend to be axed from the agenda?

See comment just above, and my next email.

> It may be of interest that to you to know that the ADs issued 
> some guiding principles:
> - don't discuss any 00 draft that was only published a short time 
> before the meeting
> - don't discuss any draft that has not had discussion on the list
> - only discuss drafts where there are open issues
> - build the foundations first
> - prioritise charter work above other work
> - prioritise meeting the milestones above other charter work

Thanks for providing these. It would be good for the AD's to also
provide these guiding principles on the ML, so the WG is aware of
them, as an when they are laid out.