Hi all,
IETF115 was the first time we clashed, and that was indeed unfortunate.
For the sidrops 116 session request, I already added rtgwg to the list
of avoided clashes, so I hope we're good.
Cheers,
Nathalie
On 2023-01-06 21:46, Chris Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2023 20:36:16 +0000,
Liz Flynn <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi RTGWG and SIDROPS chairs and participants,
I was going to say: "SO UNREASONABLE!" :)
but .. nope, this is totes reasonable.
I think I (at least) just keep clicking the 'get conflicts from last',
because
who has time for all that typing?? :)
I'll try to do better.
-chris
In the IETF 115 meeting survey six respondents called out RTGWG and
SIDROPS when answering Q19, “How many times did you have a conflict
between two sessions that were scheduled in the same time slot?"
However, to date, these groups have not listed each other as Conflicts
to Avoid in the Session Request tool.
As we start to plan for IETF 116, we are asking you to consider this
feedback and update your Conflicts to Avoid as appropriate. If you
need assistance, the Secretariat is happy to make updates in the
Datatracker on your behalf, but we do need clear guidance on what
changes to make, and how to record any new conflicts (i.e. chair
conflict, technology overlap or key participant conflict).
Finally, we’d like to remind everyone that the wg mailing list
receives a copy of each session request, and we encourage you to
review the noted Conflicts to Avoid at the time of request, so that
you can reach out to the working group chairs if you feel something is
missing or incorrect.
Thank you,
Liz
IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
