On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM Brian Trammell (IETF) <i...@trammell.ch> wrote:
> > On 17 Apr 2018, at 17:22, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Folks- > > > > We should update our conflict list for scheduling TAPS meetings during the IETF week. Here’s the algorithm I’d like you to consider: > > > > • If you are an author/editor in TAPS and an author/editor or chair in another wg, that is a first priority conflict > > • If you are a contributor to TAPS and an author/editor or chair in another wg, that is a second priority conflict > > • If you are a contributor to TAPS and a contributor to another wg (which you feel you should attend), that may be a conflict depending on how many priority of the work to TAPS. > > • If you feel you “should attend” TAPS and another wg, that is not a conflict (sorry!) > > I propose the revised conflict list below based on my (imperfect) understanding of current TAPS contributors. There’s been some discussion that “third priority” is confusing to the secretariat so I’m hoping we can converge on just two. > > > > Please send feedback. Thanks. > > > > --aaron > > > > First Priority: maprg dispatch tcpm iccrg tsvwg ippm rmcat tsvarea quic > +panrg (I chair). +TLS, too, where I co-author two drafts. Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps