RE: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Donald, 

> It's a question of costs and benefits. The cost of the IETF Announce
> posting is small. There are not that many of them and I don't find
> them to be a burden.

How many conference calls as part of working group activities did you
organize in the last two years?

Maybe there are not that many because the overhead is too high to
organize them. 

> The benefit in openness and transparency is
> large.

Are working group activities not open and transparent in your view?

> Thus the answer is simple and the policy should remain as it is
> for now. If conditions change, it can certainly be revisited.
How many conference calls of working groups you are not subscribed to
did you attend? 

Ciao
Hannes


> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
> <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> The concept is simple:  a time-specific gather is a meeting.
> Meetings
> >> require prior announcement beyond the working group.
> >
> > I am not against a meeting announcement. I am suggesting to announce
> the
> > meeting where the audience is -- in the working group.
> >



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]