Re: Specific suggestions to improve San Diego agenda [Was RE: San Diego Agenda issues]

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

> Continuing with my previous email.... per your request
> below, here are some specific suggestions on how the
> agenda for San Diego can be improved to remove the
> pressure on it, thus benefiting the WG as a whole.

Hmmm. Makes note not to use irony or rhetoric in future emails.

> I have examined the agenda in the light of the above questions, and
> have looked at the drafts currently on it.

Before going any further, be ware that the default position will be that we devote the
meeting entirely to satisfying our milestones. No other drafts would be examined, and no
other work done.

As Fred Baker recently said:
  ...the charter of a working group is a contract-of-sorts to accomplish
  something. ... I would like to see working groups held to their
  chartered work plans, and rechartered if the work-plan changes.

I take this very seriously, and would like to dilute it only in support of existing WG
drafts that also need to be progressed. If you look at the agenda you will see
that it spends most of the time of milestones that have a reasonable chance of
advancement, but actually touches on all of the milestones.

I have said before, and will say again and again until I am heard, if you want meeting
time to be spent on your drafts you MUST give time and effort to advance the WG
milestones. When we
have done our work, we have time to play.

Who in the WG has reviewed the GMPLS MIBs?
Who has provided constructive suggestions for the development of GTTP.

And failing that, perhaps the WG would like to open a debate about changing the work-plan.
But I have heard no discussion of that so I assume that the WG is happy with the current
milestones.

> i) First, I do not believe a mention by the Chairs, in less than
> 30-odd seconds each, of over 15 drafts buys the WG anything.
>
> By removing this, the WG saves a full 5 minutes right away.
[SNIP]
> -- Also, I noticed in some of your emails that you intended to "take a sense
> of the room" for some of the drafts on this huge list.
>
> I think that _should not_ be done.

I do not suggest doing it for your benefit. I suggest doing it for the benefit of the
chairs.

I will, however, happily remove your draft from this list if that is what you are asking
me to do.

> It would be good to hear if the WG believes that the above suggestions do
> not benefit the WG and/or should not be implemented (and why).
>
> Looking forward to seeing a revised agenda.

Adrian