Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net> writes:
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's my experience too. However, usually there is not enough time
for the experts to sort out the issue and arrive at a proposal at the
meeting. That means the primary reason for having the current
meetings are so that the experts can identify each other and then meet
and talk off-line in the hallways. Formalizing that procedure, and
enable it to happen remotely at any time of the year may improve
productivity.
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.
I think virtual interim meetings may have a similar end result.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf