--On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:17 -0400 Donald Eastlake
<d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of
going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...
That is why I didn't suggest "going to 2" but dropping the f2f
count to two _and_ insisting that WGs hold interim virtual
meetings. Those meetings would, given competent management,
impose deadlines too. And, if you read my (admitted sketchy)
suggestion, you would note that it essentially forces each WG
into four meetings a year if it wants to meet f2f twice.
So, if you want to look at it that way, for WGs, it is a
proposal to change three f2f meetings a year to four meetings a
year, but with only two of them f2f.
As others have pointed out, that doesn't solve the "water
cooler" problem. It would probably require some rethinking of
how we handle BOFs, WG creation, and other tasks. But the
question, IMO, is whether we really need three f2f full meetings
a year to manage those things or whether we could get clever
enough to deal with only two of them.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf