This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/iot-wg@ripe.net/
[iot-discussion] RIPE 75 draft agenda now confirmed and available
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] chair selection processes
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] RIPE 75 draft agenda now confirmed and available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at ripe.net
Fri Oct 20 14:16:09 CEST 2017
> On 28 Sep 2017, at 14:39, Rob Evans <rhe at nosc.ja.net> wrote: > > Hi, > >> A. Update on Online Trust Alliance (OTA) - Kevin Meynell, Internet Society >> B. Update on Internet of Things Meeting in Leeds - Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC >> C. Trusted Routing in the Internet of Things - Ivana Tomic, Imperial College London >> D. Key Factors for the Successful Entry of Developing Countries into the Internet of Things - Farzad Ebrahimi, Internet of Things Academy of Iran >> E. Discussion on Future Work and Draft Charter (Open Microphone) > > To ensure it doesn’t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items? All, As the "volunteer chair” for this session, I am currently in the process of putting some slides together and finalising the planning. I’ve spoken to all presenters (including myself) and everybody confirmed to stick to “lightning talk” format and make sure the talks fit within 15 minutes. So provided we accept that this is a hard limit and keep questions to also fit within the allocated time, it should work. But, that is theory and might force me to cut people off. So I would like to take up the suggestion and move the discussion forward. That of course could imply that we need to cut that off to allow for our guests to speak, but if could reduce the risk of running out of time. So my proposal would be to take this in the order B, E, A, C and D. Using the reporting from Leeds as a lead in to the discussion towards potential future work, charter and other governance requirements such as a chair selection procedure. From the list discussion I have a feeing that we are not that far off from consensus, so I expect this agenda item to be wrapped up within the 30 minutes we have for it and might even leave a bit more time for our guests to showcase their work to our community. Happy to take the lists advice on this matter. If there are no objections raised over the coming days, I’ll ask my colleagues to change the agenda to the proposed order. Regards, Marco Hogewoning “RIPE 75 IoT session coordinator"
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] chair selection processes
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] RIPE 75 draft agenda now confirmed and available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]