Re: agenda

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

I'm also in favor of a public agenda, with the caveat that one section
be listed only in summary.  I really don't care what the section is 
called
(Administrative issues is fine by me), but there are a set of topics 
that
I want us to be able to discuss without public disclosure until we are
ready to minute an action.  As an example, a public agenda item
on the "de facto charter" for IMPP would have invited comment
before we had agreement on a way forward and would have forced
a particular timing to that discussion.  Having someplace to put
those discussions is very useful.

In order to limit the black helicopter view of that, I suggest that 
topics
for that section be limited to items that do not produce a formal
action item.  When a formal action item is needed (public update
of the charter in the above case), they return to the agenda in
the appropriate slot.

					regards,
							Ted Hardie


On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

> Harald:
>
> >the question came up on the problem-statement list. I see no 
> particular
> >reason why not.
> >
> >so - to be very precise - should I instruct the secretariat to 
> move/shadow
> >the URL
> >
> >https://www1.ietf.org/IESG/internal/agenda.html
> >
> >into an URL like http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html - and keep it 
> updated?
> >
> >(I *think* all the URLs are publicly-visible ones - when we turn them 
> into
> >tracker links, we've got to point them at the public tracker for the
> >external agenda and internal tracker for the internal agenda... 
> bother...)
> >
> >To make a deadline.... if I hear no objections by Thursday evening, I 
> will
> >so instruct.....
> >
>
> I am in favor of a public agenda.
>
> Russ