multi6 wg [RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > Could we at least not get a BoF session scheduled
> 
> In which area? Did you find an AD to go for a BOF that would obviously
> conflict with multi6? Having a meeting for the purpose of having a
> meeting does not do any good to anybody.

You can forget about a BoF IMO.  If multi6 is not good, it could be 
disbanded and new one created, or..

> Little reminder for those that were not present: The last multi6 meeting
> happened in Salt Lake in 2001, at my request. After 15 or 20 minutes out
> of the 1-hour window the meeting was over and nothing was done, which
> has not changed since. 

.. we could, for example:

 - change the management [ie. chair(s)], or
 - change the w.g. members [ie. mostly ignore input from some members], or
 - settle the worst past grievances and grow up

> I do not see the point of having another SLC-like
> meeting, flat out a waste of time.

In my agenda, 20 minutes out of an IETF meeting is probably not waste of 
time, no matter how I look at it.  Of course, if one only is interested in 
multi6, that may be a problem, but then again I'd be questioning the 
participation in the IETF anyway.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings