Hi, FYI. The IESG decided the SIDR Interim should be cancelled because it didn't meet the deadlines.
The rules about Interim meetings exist to ensure an open and fair process. Other Wgs who planned an interim but didn't meet the deadlines have also been forced to cancel. BEHAVE WG is one example I am familiar with that had to cancel in the near past. SIDR is expected to play by the same rules as other Wgs. -- David Harrington Director, Transport Area Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ietf...@comcast.net +1-603-828-1401 On 3/20/12 3:04 AM, "Samuel Weiler" <wei...@watson.org> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Stewart Bryant wrote: > >> The announcement of the SIDR virtual interim failed to reach >> iesg-secret...@ietf.org within the required two weeks notice. > >I'm puzzled as to why you're raising this now given that you argued on >the IETF list last Friday that it was a minor failing: >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg72510.html > >> Additionally the agenda was published on Sunday 17th March and thus >> failed to meet the requirement that "The agenda must be published at >> least one week before the call or session" . > >The 17th was Saturday, not Sunday. One could bicker about timezones, >but it would be useless splitting of hairs. > >> The requirement to provide appropriate notice >> of the meeting and its agenda is fundamental >> to the IETF open standards process. >> >> Since the failure to meet these requirement may >> disadvantage some contributors, I regret that >> I find it necessary to cancel the proposed SIDR >> interim meeting scheduled for 24/March. >> >> I thank those that provided feedback on the matter >> and apologize for any inconvenience caused. > >While there may be other substantive reasons to cancel the interim >meeting (some of which have been raised on the WG list), the two >points cited don't seem to justify that action. > >-- Sam _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
