I don't think these have to be either-or propositions. A mixture of
both, combined with pre-scheduled "breakout" sessions that
parallelize some of the lower-interest drafts, might offer value to
all participants. Naturally, details depend on the state and size of
the working group. SPEECHSC, say, presumably has very different needs
and scheduling constraints than, say, SIPPING. (SIPPING had
approximately 75 new (00) drafts last year, counting both draft-ietf
and draft-personal-sipping.)
An observer of many large WGs would argue that paying $500 to read
email or play Solitaire isn't a particularly good investment, either...
On Jan 15, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
I fully agree with what Henning proposes. However, I am not sure
it would be practical. Namely, folks get their employers to pay
for going to IETF to get work done. Will that still happen if the
meeting becomes, "What's going on in the IETF?" I know when I was
in startup mode, the holder of my purse said, "Buy and read the
proceedings" when I wanted to go to a technical conference where I
was not presenting.
Because of this (or maybe I've got the symptom confused with the
cause), WG meetings have become face-to-face work session: "Read
all the documents, all the e-mails, and absolutely NO tutorials in
your presentation" is the mantra of many work groups.
That said, I have purposely scheduled tutorials in some of my work
groups when the technology, OR BUSINESS DRIVER, is obscure but
significantly impacts the direction of our work. I made a point of
inviting those whom I expected to balk at our work product if they
did not know why we want that route. So far, that has been
successful.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf