On 7/17/06 10:11 AM, "Jeffrey Altman" <jaltman(_at_)columbia(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Speaking as a working group chair, what is important to me is the
ability to make progress on the milestones the working group is
committed to achieve.
Sure, but you don't want to risk insularity, which I think
clearly has been at least partly responsible for some less-than-
stellar work. There's a need to look a little beyond the
next deliverable and think about what's needed to avoid turning
working groups into echo chambers. Clearly this is more important
in the early stages of a working group, but there are always
working groups in their early stages.
And while there's an idealized picture of how work gets done in
the IETF, the truth is that as the organization has grown and
has gotten broader participation, culture from other standards
bodies has been gradually been incorporated to the point where
you cannot honestly say that the main work of the IETF is done
on mailing lists. The role of meetings has changed. It seems
to me that either we should make a better effort to stick to
the ideal or try to be more explicit about the changing role
of meetings.
That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing
priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better. The
ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot
over the past year or so but there are still too many working
groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote
listeners from providing inputs), etc.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf