Re: [lisp] Update on moving LISP

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net> writes:

    Margaret> Do we actually need two sessions if one of them is going
    Margaret> to conflict with the RRG?  Or will we have enough people
    Margaret> missing that it would be better to just have a single
    Margaret> session?

I think that once Darrel sends out a draft agenda we can look at this
and examine in more detail.

One of the questions has to do with how much we value getting input on
things related to lisp that are not strictly within charter.  Darrel
convinced me that a number of these areas are valuable.  For example,
presentations on research results into lisp mapping scaling are not
within our charter, but it seems like they might well inform important
items within our charter.  Things like Lig are useful to think about
in terms of lisp debugging.

There's a bit more complexity when we get to things like the mobility
draft from last agenda.  We've reached a point where discussing it as
an item to adopt doesn't make sense.  However Darrel convinced me that
presentations like that make sense in terms of informing people about
how people might use LISP.

I do agree that there is a lot of variability in how WGs use time.
I'm not attached to a particular model.  If the WG wants to say
something like "using end of session time for some of these tasks is
OK, but overflowing is not," then that works for me.  AIf the WG wants
to say something broader than's great too.  Another factor to consider
is of course Jari's availability and preferences.

For now, Darrel and I are wanting to be relatively broad in what we
accept as informational topics in the interest of building a community
fostering discussion and establishing shared context about how LISP is
used.  However if after looking at the agenda, you think we got it
wrong, please let us know.