--On Monday, 02 May, 2005 09:56 -0400 Steve Silverman
<steves(_at_)shentel(_dot_)net> wrote:
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that most of the
meeting
has not read most of the drafts let alone the latest version
under discussion.
There is a fundamental IETF tenet that nothing is explained
but there is a false assumption
that the people in the meetings have read the drafts.
Whenever I've seen the chair ask how many hve read
the draft, it is usually < 5%. I think this is a key issue
but the solution is not obvious. Nobody can
read the number of drafts that are issued for a meeting. Not
even for the subset of attended WGs.
If it were true that no one can read the drafts relevant to work
they are actually materially concerned with (a slightly
different definition than yours), and I suggest it is not, then
WGs are trying to do too much, and handle too many documents, at
once. Others have made that point.
As far as the 5% is concerned, we have, it seems to me, a choice:
* We can decide to focus on the people who are doing the
work and making real contributions. If they have read
the drafts, fine. If most of them have not, then it is
time to cancel the meeting after that show of hands.
Those who are not usefully contributing don't count at
all.
* We can decide that the people who haven't done the
reading shouldn't be in the room and either evict them
or impose admission requirements for participation in a
WG. Note that many of the other groups to which you
refer have such admission requirements, whether they are
taken seriously or not.
Other organizations have proponents explain what they are
proposing. IMO this leads to a better quality of discussion.
But this limits the number of topics that can be worked on in
a week to far less than the IETF tries to cover.
It also, often, leads to much more superficial evaluation of
what is being standardized than the IETF has traditionally been
willing to tolerate. Note that we still expect most work to be
done on mailing lists and between meetings, not in face-to-face
"no one things about this in between, then we get together and
try to make standards" meetings. I think either model can be
viable, but they are different... and there are still
significant contributors to the IETF who have no set foot in a
face-to-face IETF meeting in years (if ever).
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf