Re: Upcoming IETF meeting - Agenda items

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> - The timetable of the nomcom should be lengthened (I think there is 
>> consensus on that). What should it be changed to?
> 
> In an absolutely ideal world we would start one whole IETF sooner, but I
> think that is unrealistic. How about starting in September, and adjusting
> the sequence so that the slates are submitted a month earlier? Something
> like
> 
> (2)  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>         completed within 5 months.
> 
>       The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>       completed one month prior to the Friday of the week before the
>       First IETF.  It is expected to begin 6 months prior to the Friday
>       of the week before the First IETF, with the slates being ready for
>       confirmation two months prior to that day.
> 
>> - Should there be some kind of publication of names of nominees?
> 
> If we stretch the schedule as above, I don't think this is necessary.
> The reason I suggested it was to avoid a last minute panic in the
> confirming bodies. By allowing a full month for confirmation, we get
> rid of the panic.

to me, these are about the only interesting issues.

and brian's approach makes sense to me except i do not see why moving to the
july/august ietf is unrealistic.

randy