[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Agenda for Vienna

So, why not have three 2H sessions and stop saying "time constraint"?
because you will need a different AD to approve it.

According to Kurt, no.

Say again? I think I have made it pretty clear that we will not apply
for three 2h sessions.

You are a (co-)chair, not an AD.

Yes.


That is why you, not the AD, are the problem.
Ok, let's take this one last time. In order to have any more than one slot, you need approval by the AD. In order to have three slots, you need to have IESG approval. In order for this to reach the IESG, you need to have the AD bring there. Randy, correct me if I am wrong.

I as co-chair do not support having three slots. Even if I did, Randy as AD does not support having three slots. So, as it stands, you would have to convince both be and Randy (and probably Sean) that three slots would be useful. After that you need the IESG to approve it.

If you don't like this, there are ways to appeal.

From what I see on the mailinglist, there have been support for having ONLY two sessions. Only you have asked us to hold a third session. Also, from what I have understood you wanted the third session so that we could have more time for people to present their proposals. Again, my understanding of the IETF process and the IETF meetings are that you present proposals by writing drafts. The sessions are there for general architectural discussions and to sort out details of the drafts.

In addition, it is another problem that you have little understanding
on IETF procedure.
I don't know what part of the process I am failing to understand. The above is my understanding, and I am sure that Randy or Erik as ADs and IESG members or any of the former IAB and IESG members on this list can help me understand this if I am wrong. Please point out any misunderstandings.

- kurtis -