At 08:28 AM 11/29/2007, michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
> That doesn't make for a "has to", but it seems like a good
> reason to "choose to", from my perspective.
I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked,
why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
Smaller meetings held outside North America could be located
in smaller cheaper hotels, and would encourage wider participation
in the IETF. In fact, smaller meetings in North America would
achieve the same ends.
instead of focusing on the "where to meet", shouldn't any discussion
about meetings focus on the "why to meet"?
IETF WGs have few limitations for interim meetings, mostly having to do with
- give 30 days notice to every in the WG, and
- can't be too soon after or too near the next monolithic meeting
other than that, interims can occur in any and every WG. But they
often don't occur for many other reasons than "let's have the interim
in Europe or Asia or Latin/South America or Africa to get away from the US"
Ietf mailing list