In light of Lloyd's recent notes concerning a possible new chair of
the PMP, my own personal schedule for submitting a draft document
to the IETF was the latter part of October, which would give some
IESG review time prior to the December IETF Plenary in San Jose,
where I could receive any feedback face to face at the Network
Management Area Open Meeting.
This would mean that NYC would be the last face-to-face PWG review
of the MIB document, with finalizing comments accepted only via
the mailing list. I don't know how this jives with what a possible
new WG chair would expect, but our 2 year deadline is up in March
and I don't think we have time to bring in a new chair that does
not have any experience with the MIB or semi-recent PWG experience.
My time is kinda booked up starting in '97, and I really wanted to
get this submitted prior to the December IETF, it still looks like
a very convenient possibility to me.
Harry Lewis wrote:
>> I was anticipating that someone may begin to reach this conclusion:
>> >You indicated that a "first" occurred after three years: significant poor
> >attendance of a large number of long time members attending. It would
> >be interesting to note why that event occurred. Is it a trend? Is it a
> >coincidence? Is it an indication as to the interest level of what is going
> >on? The location is bad (a given)? I don't know the reason.
>> I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want anyone to interpret my difficulty
> in attending NYC is a trend or lack of commitment to the PWG or it's efforts.
>> I don't particularly want to make a distinction between long term
> and recently participating members, either. Working, contributing,
> participating, productive members are ALL very important.
>> It's no secret that NYC is not a popular location with many of the
> PWG members. Even though I have been one of the most vocal in this
> regard, I would hope it is not perceived that NYC didn't "come off"
> just due to location (as I've said, I've got my tickets in hand).
>> We all have schedules which become unmanageable at times. I would
> expect any member to miss a meeting or two during a year full of
> 12 meetings. In the case of NYC, we are off to a bad start knowing
> that Jay and Dave can't make it (without rehashing Jay's plea to change
> the meeting). I guess, in this light, Jay's notion of a quorum is valid.
>> When I made the query, I said I didn't want to collapse the meeting.
> It's beginning to look as if there wasn't much there in the first place.
> I certainly don't want to initiate the collapse of anything greater!
>> I'm leaning toward not going to NYC. My greatest concern is Printer MIB.
> I feel is that Randy will have to "cut and run" at some point, or we
> miss the target and look for the next one. If someone explains to me
> that the life of the printer MIB is in grave danger if NYC doesn't happen
> then I'll most likely be there.
>> It sounds like most of our other endeavours are basically on hold until
> November anyway, am I right?
>> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems