[Please excuse any duplicates; email snafu over here] Tony, > As we all agree, RRG meeting time is our most limited resource, and perhaps > also the most effective means to facilitate our convergence process. Thus, > we would like to allocate adequate amount of time for discussions in our > future meetings. Consequently, we need to be more selective on the > presentations of new proposals. We would like to reiterate that the floor > remains open for new proposals, so new proposals may still be submitted as > a draft and considered on the mailing list. However, we would like to > ensure that only high quality proposals with substantive novelty will take > group-wide time. This makes good sense. > To assist us in this, the chairs plan to form a "program committee". These > would be interested members who are respected architectural contributors. > For a proposal to be considered for an agenda slot, the backers of the > proposal should approach members of this committee and ask them to review > their proposal. Committee members that have a conflict of interest (e.g., > same employer) should recuse themselves. If any member of the committee > feels that the presentation is worthwhile, it will be placed on the agenda, > time permitting. The identity of the endorsing member will be made public. > > > We would deeply appreciate your comments on this proposal. > Seems a reasonable proposal. However, the devil is in the details (as always). One point that seems particularly challenging is that "if any member feels that the presentation..., time permitting." Its the "time permitting" part that is of concern. In particular, if we have N proposals and M < N slots (ie., time for M talks, not N), and all N proposals have proponents, how do you envision that being resolved? Dave ----- End forwarded message -----
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature