On 13/08/2014 10:45, manning bill wrote:
IETF-15 was very productive indeed.
One of the metrics of productivity is workable set sizes. A working group,
task force, design team, cabal really works best when its not a group of 200
of your close personal friends.
An affliction the IETF has is that it is too large, cumbersome, and downright
unwieldy. It lacks the nimble, agile edge it used to have as an youth.
Now reaching middle age, it has added
a hundred and fifty kilos and a massive sense of entitlement and self worth…
It lumbers around debating trivialities and folks doing real work find other
venues to explore/design and only when cooked
do they think of bringing the work to the IETF for rubber-stamping.
(and yes, I do remember with fondness the “water-cooler” spirit Mike relates)
So - for a novel suggestion. Split the IETF areas into autonomous entities
that run their own meetings, in essence franchising the IETF model. The IETF
itself only meets bi-annually and only to
coordinate areas. Size concerns dissipate, the number of available venues
goes up and related costs go down.
Actually, that's an old suggestion. It certainly doesn't work for
me: I regularly attend meetings in at least three Areas, and am
happy to sit in on others to improve my general knowledge.
Brian