Hi,
--On July 18, 2008 7:20:37 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla
<ekr(_at_)networkresonance(_dot_)com> wrote:
2. People's ability to meet tends to expand to fill out the available
meeting time.
I think this is a key point. Rather than expanding the number of slots why
don't we look at using the time we have more efficiently. Some questions to
ask include:
How much work at a meeting could actually have been done on the mailing
list beforehand?
What work do we do at a meeting that can't be easily done via a mailing
list?
Do we spend too much time with overviews of drafts that really should have
been read by all attendees beforehand? Maybe it would be good for the first
session on Monday to be an "Area Overview" session where an overview of all
the latest drafts can be "presented" to give people a broader view of what
is going on? Actually I have often felt that the IESG plenary would be a
good place for area directors to give status updates/overviews of the work
going on in their areas.
Are 2 1/2 hour sessions really valuable, or would two shorter sessions be
better?
--
Cyrus Daboo
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf