----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
Cc: <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>; "IETF discussion list"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:56 PM
On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant
to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency
hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even
have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really
gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on
the mailing list.
It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I
Pete
I find that strange, not something I have ever seen (at least judging by
the minutes of WG meetings which I have not attended).
I see many WG which only make progress just prior to the closing of I-D
submission up to the point soon after submission reopens, but that is
not the same thing as making progress by meeting.
And I do know of two or so WG which make progress at a meeting; but they
seem to me to be WG that are too small to be a WG in the first place,
where the work is driven by less than half a dozen people who gain much
from meeting but where the breadth of experience and knowledge is
missing and where the output is then, for me, suspect.
WG of a substantial size seem to me to gain little or nothing from
meeting, as the minutes show.
Tom Petch
think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that
happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other
participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and
ask
for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of
work
that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings
(including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice
their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for
some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of
consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only
poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478