On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Narten <nar...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3C > > and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping > > participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we > > went to the current advance scheduling. > > Understood. > > But I wonder of we've forgotten the original motivation for this rule > and it has become an unchangable slogan (e.g., "four legs good, two > legs bad") > > If, in fact, a date we've chosen turns out to be problematic in terms > of getting a good site, the IAOC should consider (emphasis on > *consider*) whether an alternate date would be better. Of course, such > a change in date should not be done lightly. And it should not be done > with out checking with the specific organizations we try to avoid > clashes with, etc. But to say the dates are fixed and immovable no > matter what seems unhelpful. > > At the plenary, I recall it being said that for one of the upcoming > asian meetings, the exact dates were problematical, and alternate > dates would have had better options/rates. When I suggested privately > to the IAOC that they should *consider* changing the date, I got (what > to me) felt like one big knee jerk "we can't change the dates, > period." > > As we move the meeting scheduling window from 1.5 years out to 3 years, I think that that is one of the things we should consider when necessary. Of course, hopefully that same move will make it less necessary. Regards Marshall > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
