From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf(_at_)andybierman(_dot_)com]
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.
Most of the meetings I was in went through the issues list.
However there is certainly an advantage to the W3C model where there is an
annual plenary for interchange across groups that is separate from the
regular meetings (there are advantages and disadvantages to having them be
concurrent).
The big advantage of the IETF model is that it significantly reduces my
travel. The disadvantage is that it reduces the amount of time available to
get the issues list done. It also encourages larger WGs but not larger
active cores.
What I do not like very much is the OASIS model where there is no
organization plenary at all. That is something that I will probably push the
OASIS management to change at some point.
I don't think that the current meetings are power-point laden summaries, but
that would actually be useful. I often end up going to sessions at
conferences to find out what a WG is intended to achieve. This only happens
at IETF in the BOFs.
I am not too worried about ending up with a trade show. The real danger as I
see it is adding a speaker track or having open access to the trade show. A
secondary risk is that people who want to go to attend the IETF would get
seconded to man the booth.
From a cost perspective the big problem with trade shows is the down time
when everyone is in sessions. Sponsor booths at the opening reception
through to the afternoon break on the first day would provide the same
promotional value as an all week event, would minimize the incentive to come
in just for the show.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf