On 12/19/00 at 12:04 PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
>I would suggest that chairs try setting the agenda around issues, not
>around drafts themselves. The main point of the face-to-face meetings
>is to resolve issues that cannot be resolved by mail. Put those on the
>agenda, and let the combatants present as much tutorial information as
>they feel is necessary to make their point -- but don't set up the
>editor of a particular draft to give a presentation first, followed by
>discussion. Don't even put the draft title on the agenda, just in the
>preliminary mail sent out before the meeting. Thoughts?
I think you have this backwards. The job of an IETF WG is not to
resolve issues per se; it's to write Internet-Drafts. Now, I do agree
that the editors should NOT be presenting the draft; that's silly.
However, the issues that the face-to-face meetings should be dealing
with are *only* those that pertain to a particular draft. If noone
has written down at least a straw-man I-D, then I don't think it's
worth discussing the issue at all.
So, have the editors cull out the open issues from their drafts, and
put only those issues on the agenda. No tutorials at all should be
needed if there is sufficient text in the I-D (or suggested
replacement text posted to the mailing list) to define the issue.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated
Ph: (217)337-6377 or (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
