My two ag.
IETF Community,
During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that
the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more
time for discussion of general architectural issues in the
former. We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in
its usual slot on Wednesday night and the IAB one on Thursday
evening. The latter was well-attended and our perception was
that at least some of the discussion was helpful. At the same
time, several members of the community told us that they would
have liked to participate, but could not be present Thursday
evening. We also believe that these discussions are useful to
the extent that we can focus on specific topics and discourage
speechmaking that takes up extended periods of time.
So, we have several questions and request comments and
discussion either to the IETF list (ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org) or the IAB
one (iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org):
* Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do
so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or
occasional schedule?
I think that the split is useful, and allows for more in depth
discussions. I would like to see the two meetings happening at each
IETF.
* If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on
Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more
radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at
this point).
I do not know if this is a radical change, but what about swapping the
current Monday evening and Thursday evening - i.e. make Monday the
evening for the IAB meeting, and Thursday evening a full 2.5 hours
meetings slot?
* Do you have major architectural themes that should be
addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?
* And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it
better to let people explain their views at whatever length that
takes?
I am an adept of democracy which IMO is translated in this context as
free speech within the limits of decency.
Regards,
Dan