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 SA is shown a week later, also TBD, but scheduled for Warsaw. * NANOG 37 is shown as location TBD, but is definitely scheduled for San Jose, CA 4-7 June. * IETF 66 appears to have a location, but the calendar does not show it (we can't blame another organization for not telling us about that one). * The 3GPP meetings in the last half of September also have locations established that are not shown on the list. * The October meetings of NANOG and ARIN have locations assigned and ARIN has a date. I could go on, but perhaps that makes the point. While those schedules are earlier than any you have asked about, locations are an issue in whether or not conflicts occur and I hope coordination (not merely looking at calendars) is occurring with organizations with whom avoiding conflicts is critical. Again taking a near-term example, the time-adjacency of the ICANN meeting last March 26-31 with IETF 64 from the 19th-24th would have been a major inconvenience were they in the same part of the world; when one was in Dallas, TX, USA and the other in Wellington, NZ, the times turn into a conflict. I notice that we have IETF 68 marked 18-23 March 2006, location TBD, and ICANN 26-30 March, location "Europe". Are you endeavoring to assure that they are at least on the same or adjacent continents? Moving out into the 2008 time frame, I see similar adjacencies between ANSI T11 and IETF 71 and again between T11 and IETF 72 and 73 (in all three cases, adjacent dates, neither location announced, but it is a safe bet that T11 will meet in North America). I don't know whether T11 is on your "must avoid" or "should avoid" lists or whether there are similar relationships going forward. Personally, I consider avoiding conflicts, or even close adjacencies, with ICANN to be of higher priority than most or all other bodies because they are, as far as I know, the only to which IETF formally appoints a Board Liaison and a voting Nomcom member, and on which we are dependent for critical services (the IANA function). But, if we are going to have back-to-back meetings with any critical group (or, IMO, with the same group three times in a row), dates are not quite good enough to know whether conflicts exist. regards, john --On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 06:58 -0400 Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > All; > > This is a 1 week Last Call for feedback on Version 01 proposed > 2008 - 1010 IETF Meeting dates. The IAOC anticipates taking > action to formally adopt dates on 25 May 2006. These dates > differ from the originally proposed dates based upon community > feedback, a review of meeting dates of those organizations on > the Clash List and maintenance of a reasonably similar period > between meetings. While every effort was made to avoid > conflicts where known, it was not always possible with those > organizations in the "should avoid" category. Your feedback > to iad@xxxxxxxx on conflicts with these dates would be > appreciated. > > Proposed 2008 - 2010 meeting dates: > > 2008 > > IETF 71 Mar 30 - Apr 4 > > IETF 72 Jul 27 - Aug 1 > > IETF 73 Dec 7 - 12 > > 2009 > > IETF 74 Mar 22 - 27 > > IETF 75 Aug 2 - 7 > > IETF 76 Dec 6 - 11 > > 2010 > > IETF 77 Mar 28 - Apr 2 > > IETF 78 Jul 25 - 30 > > IETF 79 Dec 5 - 10 > > Our findings of the schedule of other organization's meetings > can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html . > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Ray Pelletier > IAD > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
