I'm planning to attend NYC and have my non-refundable tickets in hand.
We need to all ping to the mailing list (as well as to Larry), so that we
really know what all people's plans are. The first few defectors can start
a tidal wave of defections.
I'd like to see the Printer MIB finished and NYC looks like the last
meeting to work face-to-face. Even if there isn't a hugh turn out, remember
that the IETF policy is that nothing is final in a meeting; decisions have
to be send to the DL and see what the mailing list actually thinks. So
I think it is crucial that we have the NYC meeting for the Printer MIB
to help Randy finish this year.
Also I'd like to take what ever time is left to continue processing the
Job Monitoring MIB document specification, continuing through each object.
I was unable to attend San Diego because I was on vacation in Boston and
you guys finished early, so that the teleconference that I set up for the
afternoon on Friday afternoon to join you didn't happen.
At 15:09 09/25/96 PDT, Randy Turner wrote:
>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
>> 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