On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3CUnderstood.
> and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping
> participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we
> went to the current advance scheduling.
But I wonder of we've forgotten the original motivation for this rule
and it has become an unchangable slogan (e.g., "four legs good, two
legs bad")
If, in fact, a date we've chosen turns out to be problematic in terms
of getting a good site, the IAOC should consider (emphasis on
*consider*) whether an alternate date would be better. Of course, such
a change in date should not be done lightly. And it should not be done
with out checking with the specific organizations we try to avoid
clashes with, etc. But to say the dates are fixed and immovable no
matter what seems unhelpful.
At the plenary, I recall it being said that for one of the upcoming
asian meetings, the exact dates were problematical, and alternate
dates would have had better options/rates. When I suggested privately
to the IAOC that they should *consider* changing the date, I got (what
to me) felt like one big knee jerk "we can't change the dates,
period."
As we move the meeting scheduling window from 1.5 years out to 3 years, I think that that is
one of the things we should consider when necessary. Of course, hopefully that same move will make it less necessary.
Regards
Marshall
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf