 |
 |
On Oct 24, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Doug McIntyre <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:22:46PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> Also, given how big MICE has become and some of the players involved, I’d think we can do better than 3 days advance notice on service affecting work that will take down the the majority of the IX? > > OOTH, if you get out past 7 days you have the problem that people > forget about the window, and are blindsided by it actually happening. > I get more complaints about further out windows than shorter. Hrm, 7-10 days seems to be industry standard for this sort of thing, and in practice, I personally have never had anyone complain about providing *more* advance notice for service affecting work. Calendars and all….. > I would typically aim for 6 days, but didn't want to do it during MEA, > and now Holloween is coming up as well. Given 2.5 solid days (not > weekend), went with a window that fit around my and other's schedule. Understood, and truly appreciate you volunteering to do the work, however, what about the input of the other 60+ members of MICE into this? Unless I've completely missed something, this all seems very unstructured and ad-hoc. Board folks and community - I’d encourage some more discussion here on governance of the technical side of the IX, including how and when changes are scheduled/approved, and perhaps some formalization of a technical committee. I think we’ve reached a point where continuing to do things ad-hoc paints a shaky picture. -- Andrew Hoyos [log in to unmask]