ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Moving from "hosts" to "sponsors"

2006-03-24 08:47:16
Andy Bierman <ietf(_at_)andybierman(_dot_)com> writes:

my $0.02:

Nothing -- not in the current meeting format.

A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of standards-track protocols.

The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings.
Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings.
WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and
get them done fast.  Decisions validated on the WG mailing
list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday.
...
Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course,
and better remote meeting participation tools over time.
If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because
smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more
people will be able to participate.

I think there are some good ideas here.

I find that WG meetings are too short to get anything useful done, and
all the issues that would benefit of longer face-to-face discussions
are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are fleshed
out.

I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a
further proposal:

Have open virtual interim-meetings for specific WG work items.  A
working group could declare to have a two-hour meeting on jabber (and
possibly audio) on a specific date to sort out all technical problems
with a specific document.  The audience will then be more inclined to
have actually read the document.  If there is an agenda and list of
open issues, going through the open issues until there is one (or
more) fully fleshed out proposed solution is hopefully not too
un-realistic.  The proposal can then be written up and taken back to
the WG for mailing list discussions.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>