--On 24. januar 2006 18:08 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will circulate them ASAP.
I wonder if that's the right approach.....the original impetus for the "30 day rule" was a situation where we had a non-US IETF (I think it was Adelaide), and suddenly were hit by a flurry of requests for "interim" meetings a week or two before or afte the IETF meeting - all of them intending to be in the US.
The interpretation of some was that this looked like an attempt by US participants to avoid the expense of going overseas, leading to a perception that they thought it was fair that overseas participants always paid the cost of participating in US meetings, but not vice versa.
In this case, the IETF meeting is in the US, and the interim meeting is not - so the foot may be in the other mouth, as the saying goes.
If making rules, I'd say "30 days is the norm. It's a rule unless the AD says otherwise; the AD's decision has to be published" (so that we can see who to blame if the community thinks it's not OK.
But be careful what's a rule and what's advice, and don't mix too many topics into one document..... it destroys the ability to get finished.
Harald
Attachment:
pgpJXpyY2Z3bZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf