On 17-May-2006, at 08:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I'm not saying they are not actually being considered, but they aren't
listed in the calendar (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/
events.cal.html), while
others from other regions are all listed. In my opinion, either we
do that
calendar corre
John,
Thanks for the feedback. Responses in line.
John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal
list appears to have not been kept up to date:
As the opening paragraph for the page (
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html ) states:
The
Ray,
I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal
list appears to have not been kept up to date:
For example, starting from the present,
* 3GPP CN is shown as meeting 31 May- 2 June at location
TBD, but is definitely scheduled for Warsaw.
* 3GPP
--On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 09:31 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
> Thanks for the feedback. Responses in line.
>
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Ray,
>>
>> I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal
>> list appears to have not been kept up to date:
>>
John C Klensin wrote:
This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that is good
enough. If we have "must avoid" entities, then we ought to be
establishing administrative<-> administrative liaisons/ contact
points as well as technical ones, we ought to be proactively
sending out lists a
Hi, Ray,
Without reference to the useful discussion on 2006-2007 dates also in this
thread, I would like to thank you guys for putting the 2008-2010 stake in
the ground. It is easier for other SDOs to avoid us if we schedule before
they do.
And thanks for doing so, in a public way, so that y
inline.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 09:31 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John,
Thanks for the feedback. Responses in line.
John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
I don't know if there are other problems, but the events.cal
list appe
On 05/17/2006 12:15 PM, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
> This is a community. It extends beyond the boundaries of the IETF and
> the IETF is not the "center' of that community.
Is there a center? Is there a centroid? If so, what/where?
___
Ietf mailin
Ray,
> We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to
> reduce the inconvenience for you and others.
This is a great advance. If there's some rough stuff about getting
the calendar process in place when we try this for the first time,
people need to remember what an awaited
Ray,
> We are working to schedule our events 18 - 24 months in advance to
> reduce the inconvenience for you and others.
This is a great advance. If there's some rough stuff about getting
the calendar process in place when we try this for the first time,
people need to remember what an awaited
From: Ray Pelletier
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Moreover adjacency cannot be
avoided with 34 groups and 52 weeks.
[DR] Actually from the perspective of
a participant from a different continent than North America adjacency
of meetings scheduled in North Amer
Since Joe has identified a calendar (even an ISOC-sponsored one!) that
seems to be updated with less work from the secretariat than the current
meeting-planning list/calendar, perhaps the IAD should evaluate whether
the IETF should switch to using this calendar for coordination, and
retire its
Ray,
Thanks for doing this it helps a lot.
I think the selection criteria needs one more variable:
Time between meetings.
With 3 meetings a year 122 days is about right, but some times during the
year are less productive than others so we should try to space the
meetings out longer in t
Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
Ray,
Thanks for doing this it helps a lot.
I think the selection criteria needs one more variable:
Time between meetings.
I agree. I was particularly concerned with the Dec to March timeframe
as I believed there would be lower productivity during that pe
Dear Ray (offlist)
Welcome to the wonderful world of guessing geek behavior.
I agree with Olafur on the symptom (people basically take December and/or
January off), but wonder whether allowing more time will make any
difference - we seem to produce about half the drafts within two weeks of a
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear Ray (offlist)
Welcome to the wonderful world of guessing geek behavior.
I agree with Olafur on the symptom (people basically take December
and/or January off), but wonder whether allowing more time will make
any difference - we seem to produce about half the dra
ECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear Ray (offlist)
Welcome to the wonderful world of guessing geek behavior.
I agree with Olafur on the symptom (people basically take December and/or
Jan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray,
Looking at the 2007 and 2008 dates on events.cal, it looks
like ANSI T10 (SCSI) is the primary conflict for the first week
of November, and ANSI T11 (Fibre Channel) is the primary conflict
for the first week of December. The currently proposed schedule
is fi
Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting
Calendar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray,
Looking at the 2007 and 2008 dates on events.cal, it looks
like ANSI T10 (SCSI) is the primary conflict for the first week
of November, and ANSI T11 (Fibre Channel) is the primary conflic
Ray,
Looking at the 2007 and 2008 dates on events.cal, it looks
like ANSI T10 (SCSI) is the primary conflict for the first week
of November, and ANSI T11 (Fibre Channel) is the primary conflict
for the first week of December. The currently proposed schedule
is first week of December for the 3rd I
-7754
From: Ray Pelletier
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:50
PMTo: Black, DavidCc: ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Last Call: Proposed
2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray,
Looki
@ietf.orgSubject: RE: Last Call:
Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar
Ray,
Let me check that I understand your answer - it
sounds like you're keeping
a 1-week buffer clear on both sides of IEEE 802, so
that a November IEEE
802 meeting makes it impossible for
IETF to me
On May 22, 2006, at 21:42, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
FWIW - if this is the case, this policy is in the disadvantage of the
participants coming from out of North America for both IEEE and IETF
meetings. We shall be obliged to do two trips instead of one which
doubles airfare costs and requires f
--On Monday, 22 May, 2006 23:14 +0200 Lars Eggert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 22, 2006, at 21:42, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> FWIW - if this is the case, this policy is in the
>> disadvantage of the participants coming from out of North
>> America for both IEEE and IETF meetings. We s
John,
On May 23, 2006, at 1:09, John C Klensin wrote:
So, from my perspective, that one-week buffer (or at least a
four or five day one exclusive of possible travel time) is
needed if I am to actively participate in two nearly-adjacent
meetings.
I realize people are different. For me - and I g
--On Tuesday, 23 May, 2006 11:17 +0200 Lars Eggert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 1:09, John C Klensin wrote:
>> So, from my perspective, that one-week buffer (or at least a
>> four or five day one exclusive of possible travel time) is
>> needed if I am to actively par
Lars Eggert wrote:
On May 23, 2006, at 1:09, John C Klensin wrote:
So, from my perspective, that one-week buffer (or at least a
four or five day one exclusive of possible travel time) is
needed if I am to actively participate in two nearly-adjacent
meetings.
I realize people are different. F
> Our findings of the schedule of other organization's meetings can be
found at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html .
Regarding the ITU-T meetings,
would it be possible to specify the SG involved
rather than cryptically notating "ITU-T".
I think that the only SGs of interest to many
On 05/30/2006 12:17 PM, Yaakov Stein allegedly wrote:
> I also don't imagine that there are that many co-participants
> of SG4 and IETF.
Well, we have at least one SG4 rapporteur who is pretty active.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.iet
From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 5:15 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar
On May 22, 2006, at 21:42, Roma
30 matches
Mail list logo
