Re: IETF 54 calendar

[Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com>]

On 5/28/02 at 2:50 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> Actually, Pete, POISSON didn't have a face to face meeting for 
> years, and the conflicts with other meetings are a large part of the 
> reason.

Was this a detriment to the work of that working group? My impression 
is that it was not.

> But it also excludes conflicting WG Chairs and editors, along with 
> most of the IESG and at least part of the IAB.  It is valuable, I 
> believe, to have those we charge with implementing and interpreting 
> policies present and participating when they are shaped.

- We now have 2 ADs per area. It would certainly be possible to 
schedule this in such a way that at least one of them can attend, 
even if it did overlap with other groups.

- If this is actually going to take a full 2.5 hour session, perhaps 
it should be allowed to occupy two sessions and therefore allow all 
chairs to come to at least one of those sessions.

- The secretariat gets requests to avoid conflicts from chairs and 
the IESG all of the time. If it turns out that there are enough 
people who mention the conflict such that it must be scheduled in its 
own time slot, I have no objection. But first let's see if that's 
really the case before declaring this an "essential" meeting that we 
must make sure everyone and their mother can attend.

> But Dave's comment is important here, I think...

A missed attribution, I believe. Which comment were you referring to?

> if we can get the right people to this meeting, it may have some 
> educational value for those who want to contribute to IPR policy as 
> amateur lawyers.  Uneducated decisions (or even positions and 
> drafts) that are made largely by those people can, at best, waste 
> huge amounts of time and energy.

Are you saying that this session is *not* intended to be a discussion 
among the participants but rather a presentation by some experts to 
educate the unwashed among us (of which I may be one)? Not that I 
object to such a thing in principle, but why isn't that being planned 
for Sunday or part of an IAB or IESG plenary? Better yet, a draft 
written by experts or as the result of an IAB workshop would be much 
more useful before any face-to-face meeting was had. That way, people 
could get themselves educated and then talk intelligently about the 
topic.

Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of 
session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I 
have not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not 
heard folks clamoring for such a meeting. Heck, we haven't seen a 
proposed agenda for a meeting let alone an I-D. How was it decided 
that everyone would obviously want to go and that therefore a 
separate session was needed?
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick at qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated