FWIW, I think it is really important to be receptive to the implementor community, and make sure that we can draw on their participation, be it for a nanosecond on the mailing list, virtual attendance, attendance in an interim meeting, attending a day at an IETF, or attending the full week. And some with a lot of time to look at other things as well as their own, others with less. People have different priorities, and we cannot expect everyone to fit one model. I take the point about schedule firmness early on. Obviously this is not easy, but we will try. (One of the problems is that we’re overbooked; 127 requests for 126 slots, and this time we have more slots than normally. This leads to some rescheduling requests when there are conflicts. But the preliminary -91 agenda should be out any in a couple of days.) Also, about John’s point on abandoning the ideal of working on mailing lists. I do not think we have. But the size of projects differs, and Mark’s HTTP 2.0 project has been a big and important one. They discuss a lot on the list, but also need some f2f time. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail