Aaron Falk <aafalk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is an intriguing proposal. As a wg chair, I can see the utility of
> having a virtual interim to present a new draft or topic for the wg before
> making a decision on whether to put it on the agenda. If you did it early
> enough, it might inform wg conflicts and event IETF attendance. A side
> benefit is that interim agendas are broadly announced and may reach folks who
> are not otherwise tracking the wg. I think I’ll try this in the TAPS wg the
> next time a new topic comes up.
Further thoughts... in order to socialize this better, it would be good if
we followed some kind of semi-common process. This might mean:
1) at IETF(n-1), the chair slides might say:
a) deadline for considering new documents is DATE(IETF(n) - 8 weeks)
b) a virtual interim meeting about said documents will occur during the
week of DATE(IETF(n)-6 weeks). [Exact day/time TBD, Meeting will be
recorded]
2) WG chair collects requests to consider adoption, notifies the ML, and
schedules a virtual interim meeting.
3) virtual interim occurs, with any oral questions being captured into an
email minutes to the list. Possibly one email per major question.
This naturally generates ML traffic if there is interest.
4) if there is much excitement, then the WG could start an adoption call, and
the document could become a WG document before IETF(n)!
This also means that we get a really good introduction presentation,
not constrained by end-of-WG meeting, here is "3minutes" talk fast..
Is this worth an RFC3999 ID?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
