There is at least one WG that never held a single face-to-face
meeting. They are certainly not required.
Many WGs do take advantage of non-face-to-face meeting alternatives
to resolve issues between meetings. For example, single-topic jabber
chats have been scheduled and used. The announcement of the jabber
room and time were announced 30 days in advance to allow plenty of
time for people to adjust their schedules, and then the agenda for
each jabber session was posted as soon as the topic was
selected. All of this is well within the guidelines for interim meetings.
I'm sure others have similar experience to share.
At 05:31 PM 7/21/2008, michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
> without having to travel, and which they all agree to. Could
> be telephone, skype with or without video, Marratech, Webex,
> Citrix, or anything else as long as they all agree.
Sounds to me like it means "any technology which requires the Internet"
since email functions quite nicely using non-Internet technologies like
UUCP. Why does the IETF have rules which hamper using the Internet to
develop Internet-based protocols?
And then use that as an excuse to lengthen the face-to-face meetings
making it even harder for people who are not IETF fanatics, or funded by
their vendor-employer to attend them?
The IETF really needs to sit up and take notice of how other development
projects leverage the Internet, such as the many open-source software
projects. I'm not saying that all WGs should be forced to start using
blogs or IM chat sessions or whatever. Rather, I think the IETF should
formally get rid of that teleconference rule, and actively encourage WGs
to experiment with new ways of working that leverage Internet
technologies, and which reduce the amount of time needed in face-to-face
That would be worthy of the title "experiment".
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list