On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0400, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
> But the more serious case involved IPSEC. The situation was thus:
>
> ~20 people for one proposal.
> ~20 people for a different proposal
> ~150 people for "someone please decide so we can go off and
> impleme
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> - what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision
> for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of
> the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear
> that an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a
s for needing a location
protocol that works above IP.
The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong.
Cheers,
Martin
-Original Message-
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:13 AM
To: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the
It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.
The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-i
OK James. Whatever.
-Original Message-
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:37 AM
To: Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF
68
At 04:31 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> - what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision
> for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of
> the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear
> that an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a
TECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:13 AM
To: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF
68
It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.
The agenda of
It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.
The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-ge
Some comments from me regarding this issue:
First of all, as Ted mentioned, we have to note whether the chairs
themselves complain about the Prague session or whether they
are just responding to complaint voiced to them in private mails.
As I read the mails, it's the latter which begs the quest
Hi, John,
Not-an-AD would be better than an-AD, but an-AD would be better than wasting
the WG's time.
I agree with your point, I agree with not making a hard-and-fast rule, and I
agree that the expectation is that an-AD chairing a WG meeting would recuse
self from subsequent IESG discussions
Spencer,
I want to express slight disagreement on one of your points (the
others are clearly, at least to me, on-target)...
--On Thursday, 19 April, 2007 08:03 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> - We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an
> extreme case of non
--On Wednesday, 18 April, 2007 19:08 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Geopriv dropped because I'm asking a general question.
>
>
> >> AGENDA CHANGE
> >>
> >> The IETF process allows for agenda changes during
> meetings. At >> the outset of the meeting, the
I want to make three peripheral comments.
1. I congratulate the ADs for bringing this to the general list.
If we habitually resolve such difficulties openly, we strengthen
the IETF going forward.
2. I think we have a general problem of assuming that issues
"decided" in the meeting room and "appr
I'm following up to Cullen's note, but I've read Sam's note, Joel's note,
and Ted's note. I tried to keep my own note short, but really admire Joel's
brevity...
(Disclaimer: I'm one of the EDU team members who worked on the WG Chairs/WG
Leadership tutorial. If I'm seriously off-base in my note
Howdy,
I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below. Before
diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments. First,
I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received private
messages
of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response
While any procedure is subject to abuse, the behaviors described by
the RAI ADs, and described by Sam below, are both acceptable and
appropriate. They are sometimes even necessary. To tell the ADs
that they can not talk to some of the active participants in a
working group in order to figure
Geopriv dropped because I'm asking a general question.
>> AGENDA CHANGE
>>
>> The IETF process allows for agenda changes during meetings. At
>> the outset of the meeting, the agenda was changed substantially
>> from the published agenda. This change included removing the
In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express serious concerns about
the process surrounding the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 in Prague. In
particular, they allege:
- That improper meetings occurred between the ADs and the working
group participants and that this "potentially harmed the in
18 matches
Mail list logo
