I understand Dave's concern, but I think it would be valuable to make it easy to see what has been requested. Any changes to the conflict list would still have to come through the chairs, encouraging that distributed work model. I've entered this as an idea that someone might pick up for work at a codesprint: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/710> RjS On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:11 -0700 Dave CROCKER > <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2011 10:27 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >>> I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts. >>> However, I thought this might help us avoid some of the >>> issues we've had in the past, where obvious group-level >>> conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled at >>> the last moments. >> >> I'll suggest a more distributed model: >> >> Chairs circulate among their wg, the conflicts they believe >> should be avoided. When that discussion settles down, the >> chairs submit their set to ietf staff. IETF staff and ietf >> main list are thereby spared the effort, but each set gets >> review beyond the chairs. > > Of course, some WGs / Chairs have been doing this, or variations > on it. for some years now. I'd venture that it works better in > some WGs than others... much like many other things. > > john > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf