Stephen, On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:10:39 -0800, Stephane H. Maes wrote: > I have difficulty to understand why this is not reverted when > contested. I also have difficulty understanding how such a > position can be taken. The agenda was draft? So it can't be draft > till the end? People have to make their travel arrangements? So > eithere the change is too late or the draft agenda remained draft > too late. I can't believe you argue this is acceptable. You appear to have a model for IETF meeting scheduling that does not match its long history. The model the IETF has *always* used is that the meeting is all week and it presumes that attendees are present all week. That this model is problematic for many people has been clear for many years. However changing the model is quite a major bit of work, and would go deeply into the IETF cultural view of the nature of the meeting. IETF participation is very different today, than it was 15 years ago. So it is fine and reasonable to suggest considering a new model, but this should be pursued as constructive adaptation to changing needs, rather than as a complaint about a particular decision. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... www.brandenburg.com _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf