At 14:58 2003-03-15, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 15. mars 2003 11:44 -0800 Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu> wrote:you said it better than I did. Thanks!Harald- Is your comment that you are surprised that there isn't a strawman agenda proposed at the time the chairs ask for additional items? If so, I agree that it's a lot more constructive to ask "is this complete?" than "what should we talk about?" (This is why we insist on a draft before adding items to meeting agendas, right?)
I see Bill's comment on "openness", though..... if the WG isn't cohesive in its understanding of what's important, I can see that the WG chairs' coming up with a strawman agenda could be seen as "forcing" the issues.
I usually ask for Agenda items before ID deadline, and that is to force
the publication issue. Working group documents automatically get agenda
slots before non WG items.
The call for agenda items mainly draws in non WG items and new drafts.
Your suggestion that the call for items contain a skeleton agenda is
good one. Put that in the WG training manual.
If you want to be radical, require a draft agenda along with the agenda
requests. This will allow AD's better to figure out how long/many
slots a WG needs/deserves. It would be nice for if the IETF WG
pages contained pointers to agenda's and proceedings of the last
few meetings as well as the agenda for the upcoming one.
Olafur