Fred Baker wrote:
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
w have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in our
time. I would often like to allow a discussion to be longer, for the
same reason that we meet f2f in the first place -
No, cramming things in tighter isn't the solution.
Fred,
This seems to be a classic example of taking a specific counter-example
and asserting that it generalizes for the whole. I believe it is the
single-most damaging problem with how we publicly discuss change.
Anyone promoting a point of view is going to find an example to support
it. What we need, instead, is a sense of "typical", to use as the base
for our consideration. Yes, we also need to consider outliers, but we
need to treat them as such.
We have working groups that are very well run. If, indeed, v6ops is an
example -- I have no knowledge and therefore no opinion -- and if that
type of working group is typical, then your conclusions probably should
apply to this topic. But I believe it isn't typical -- indeed, I
believe what you describe is a long way from typical -- and therefore it
shouldn't be used as a pivotal basis for formulating strategic aspects
of change.
At the least, when anyone puts forward a particular example, they need
to explain why anyone should believe that that example applies more
generally, both in terms of the group and in terms of individual
participants. (Some don't mind hitting the weekend, others do.)
If we believe that most IETF working groups are doing productive work
and most IETF meeting time is well-used, but it isn't sufficient, then
yes we need more meeting time.
If either of these two predicates do not apply, then we do not need more
meeting time. We need changes in how we assign and use the time already
available.
The thing that surprises me in this discussion is, frankly, the
representation of it as an "experiment".
+1
The question is whether the meetings are effective, and whether the
Secretariat finds it easier to meet the various demands placed on it.
I don't see how "more resources" can avoid making the Secretariat's
job easier. The question is how we use them.
While agreeing with your last sentence, I think the rest of your
paragraph contains the trap of assuming that more/bigger is always
better. I bet you don't really mean that. For example, it does not
make the Secretariat's job easier for them to have to work more hours...
d/
ps. Even if we decide that the average group is not well run and
doesn't need more time, there will of course be productive, well-run
groups that do, indeed, need more time. They should get it. Oh, wait a
minute, they already do. They need even more? OK, give it to them.
Even at the expense of other wgs...
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf