[Ietf-not43] Next steps

[Ted Hardie]

I'm actually hoping to focus that discussion on the process itself (do
we want to write seperate eval drafts, a combo eval draft, maintain an
"issues list" matrix, etc.), rather than focusing on the proposals.
I initially put it first in order to help reinforce the idea that
this was about the process.  I can do that in any order, of course,
and there are elements of draft structure (the splitting of the
proposals into multiple documents, e.g) that do relate here.

Thoughts from other working group members here?
					regards,
						Ted Hardie



> 
> Ted Hardie wrote:
> > 
> > 1) Agenda Bash, 5 mins (Chair) 
> > 2) Milestone & Charter Review, 10 mins (Chair)
> > 3) Discussion of evaluation process, 60 mins (Chair)
> 
> I'd prefer these two before #3.  A little knowledge of the differences 
> between versions may also give insight to the evaluation process.
> 
> > 4) IRIS Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author)
> > 5) LW Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author?) 
> 
> -andy
>