Re: Proposal: a f2f meeting in conjunction with IETF 102

I think meeting on a weekend would make it much more likely that we'd miss
important participants.  Personally, I'd vote strongly against a Sunday
meeting.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:09 AM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> I think a 1.5 day meeting on the sat/sun before IETF 102 would make sense.
>
> I would like to spend a bunch of the time talking about what is the
> actually functionality we don't have today that we would like to add or
> improve and whiteboard out ways we might do it.
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2018, at 4:18 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
>
> I think NV is an important topic and it makes sense to have a f2f meeting
> about it.  I'm inclined to say the more time the better (a half day doesn't
> seem like enough).  Two days sounds great, but it seems hard to squeeze two
> days into an IETF week(end).
>
> A long time ago, we had f2f interims independent of IETF meetings.  Would
> one of those make sense?
>
> I'm fine either way (piggybacking on IETF or not).  My main concern would
> be that enough people come that it would be a worthwhile meeting.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:12 AM Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <
> stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we'd like to know what people feel about arranging a f2f the weekend
>> before IETF 102 in Montreal. (Meaning July 13-14)
>>
>> We've heard wishes to discuss how we should get started on NV, and other
>> topics (like testing, or getting webrtc-pc to PR, for example) could
>> perhaps also be fruitful to discuss.
>>
>> So, would this be a good idea? If so, should it be a
>> half-day/full-day/two-day meeting? What topics should we focus on?
>>
>> All input is welcome!
>>
>> Stefan for the chairs
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 16 March 2018 21:27:54 UTC