Would it really be so horrible to, say, have a per day rate? I know that
there
are a lot of people who are only interested in one or two wg meetings and
would just assume go home instead of hanging around, kibbutzing in wg's
that you're only peripherally involved, etc. That in and of itself may help
improve the SNR...
Mike
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 -0400 7/30/07, Matt Pounsett wrote:
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider
to be a
related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm
interested
in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a whole week.
I can relate, I left Chicago on Tuesday.
What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for
each
area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would bring
down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the
admission
fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a wider
range
of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel stay for
a lot
of people.
This idea has been tossed around before. The rationale for
maintaining large meetings, all under "one roof" has been to maintain
coherency across all of the areas. I was told that there have been
times in some other standards bodies where one area will develop a
standard that is completely incompatible with a standard developed by
another area. ("I was told" meaning that I have forgotten all the
particulars of the story by now.) While all we should need is the
IESG to be present together, by the time you count up the areas and
weeks in a year and the ability of the IESG to travel...we just keep
up having our large conventions.
Take a look at this for an extreme counter example:
http://www.itu.int/events/monthlyagenda.asp?lang=en
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf