[Apwg-ipv6-papi] discuss the policy proposal during the plenary? + informal meeting

[Elvis Velea]

Hi everyone,

I have received an answer from the meeting program committee and my 
request for a presentation during the plenary has been rejected.. 
probably because I have not had enough time to create any slides for 
this presentation and my application was lacking details :(

their answer was:
"The PC felt that your submission was lacking in detail and we could not 
see how it fitted into the Plenary. I've spoken to the Address Policy WG 
Chairs and I realise you are raising some of these matters in the WG. 
For future reference it should be noted that submissions to the PC are 
separate to those to any Working Group and as much information as 
possible is required in order for proper evaluation to take place."

Should we just have a slot for it during both AP-WG and IPv6-WG or 
should I try to talk to the PC and explain why a presentation in the 
Plenary would be beneficial?


Regarding our informal meeting, should we meet on Monday evening or on 
Tuesday during lunch? As the RIPE Meeting is getting close, I would like 
to reserve a slot in my calendar and discuss this proposal before it's 
presented in the WGs.
I see that on Monday there are two social events, 18:30 — 19:00 (Meet 
the RIPE NCC Executive Board) and 19:00 – 21:00 (RIPE 67 Welcome Drinks)
We could meet in the slot between 17:30 and 18:30 if you are not 
attending the BoF (Best Current Operational Practices (BCOP) BoF)

Regarding the informal meeting, I think at least me, Daniel, Sander and 
Gert should meet (Olaf is not coming to the meeting as far as I 
understand). I am not sure if Andrea, Marco or Ingrid want to 
participate, they would be welcome if they do :-)

cheers,
elvis


On 8/27/13 4:10 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> And about presentations, just to be clear, some IPv6 talk in the plenary
>> Tuesday, and then a presentation of the new proposal Wednesday morning
>> (address policy WG)? I am not quite following why the presentation should
>> be in the plenary rather than in the WG(s).
>
> Because the impact of this proposal is so big that it should be brought to everyones attention. Discussing it can then take place in the WG.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>