> 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.
In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel
costs.
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.
But is the WG the place to have the discussion? In most of the WG's
that I attended this week, technical discussions were typically between
3 to 5 experts in the field who know everything about the topic, the
rest of the room either couldn't follow the discussion or had nothing
to contribute. That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there
doing nothing. While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful,
I much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then have
one person report on the outcome.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1160438400. Watch this space...
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf