Aaron Falk <aafalk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mcr> b) a virtual interim meeting about said documents will occur during the
mcr> week of DATE(IETF(n)-6 weeks). [Exact day/time TBD, Meeting will be
mcr> recorded]
> Maybe multiple interims depending on demand?
yes, I think that's a place for some experimentation.
Fewer meetings are easier to schedule, but lead to less time.
More meetings accomodate disparate audiences easier, but that means it also
would tend to loose people who would exclude themselves because they aren't
interested (and may actually be reasonably critical).
> 2) WG chair collects requests to consider adoption, notifies the ML, and
> schedules a virtual interim meeting.
mcr> 3) virtual interim occurs, with any oral questions being captured into an
mcr> email minutes to the list. Possibly one email per major question.
mcr> This naturally generates ML traffic if there is interest.
> The discussion of handling questions seems overly proscribed. I’d rather
> experiment a bit.
Sure. My idea is to stoke the list.
I've had authors ask me how to generate interest on the list, and the best
way is with questions. I've suggest that authors ask each other questions on
the list :-)
>> Is this worth an RFC3999 ID?
> I think you mean RFC3933. I’d rather have some running code first. AFAICT,
> there’s nothing in our process BCPs that prohibit was from just doing this.
Yes, 3933. (3^3=9..) exactly.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
