On Jul 22, 2004, at 6:30 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I think it comes back to:
a) some groups probably shouldn't meet as often
b) some groups perhaps shouldn't exist at all
c) some groups need 6-10 hours of continuous face-time in which
they
can actually get things done. We have pushed such things to
interim meetings, sometimes with success, sometimes without.
The problem is that these groups get 4 hours at IETF, easily
fill that, and still feel that they didn't get everything done.
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the
IETF meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria
for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even
nudge groups into making some additional progress ("you can't have
your meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones").
BTW, regarding the survey: there's only been 80 responses so far. My
take is that people don't care about the issue enough to voice their
opinion.
--aaron
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf