Scott,
Hmmm. I thought your "optimistic" assumption was that
people would try to resolve issues before the meetings. It may
be that I misunderstood, or simply that I am not aware of much
of what goes on in the background at meetings.
At most meetings, the usual procedure is for people to
talk about the information most listeners would know already
if they read the draft and paid attention to the mailing list.
Then the usual questions are: 1) do we accept the draft as a
WG document or 2) is the draft ready for last call? After the
WG (co-)chair(s) tally hands, or hum-levels, the question then
goes to the mailing list. This is the procedure for about 5
out of 6 presentations, almost all the time. These questions
rarely (if ever) get asked before the meeting and - in many
cases - the information people have after the meeting is not
any different than they had before the meeting.
Since the majority of not particularly contentious stuff
gets resolved this way, I would suspect that merely asking the
question before the meeting - rather than after the meeting -
might eliminate much of the work that currently takes up time
during each WG meeting. Of course this is based on optimistic
assumptions like people read the drafts before the meeting and
people would aggressively try to resolve at least the easily
resolved issues.
At a minimum, this would result in a lot of half-hour or
one hour meetings instead of one and two hour meetings. But
in other cases (where - for example - the only thing discussed
during the meeting is document status) - there would be little
point in having the meeting if the inforamtion was simply put
out on the mailing list before the meeting and there were no
questions about it.
I believe that making less optimistic assumptions would
mean no change in any respect. I tend to believe this, more
pessimistic, view is more likely.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of 'Scott W Brim'
--> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:36 AM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: EARLY submission deadline - Fact or Fiction?
-->
--> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 10:07:27AM -0500, Gray, Eric allegedly wrote:
--> > Making your - admittedly optimistic - assumption and following
--> > it to a conclusion leads me to suspect that many
--> (possibly most) WG
--> > meetings would likely be subject to last-minute
--> cancellation if all
--> > remaining issues are resolved immediately before the meetings.
-->
--> You're even more optimistic than I am. Essentially every WG has
--> problems that are not resolved by e-mail (and are rarely
--> resolved even
--> in person). I wouldn't expect any change in who meets, just in the
--> meeting logistics. Those that are free of these problems need never
--> meet in person.
-->
--> > And don't for a minute think that Employers would fail to note
--> > that issues got resolved prior to a trip to Iceland but
--> not before a
--> > similar meeting in Hawaii.
-->
--> :-). There you go, another criterion for venue selection.
Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that meetings should be
scheduled in inhospitable climates so that the incentive for
resolving issues is higher, or are you suggesting the obverse?
-->
--> swb
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf