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 Håkansson 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 21:27:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:39 UTC