Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question
2014-08-12 20:41:10
why does it not work for you? are you being prevented from participating in
multiple areas?
or do you want to kill the organization effectiveness because you want to
optimize your travel schedule?
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 12August2014Tuesday, at 16:20, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: IETF-91 Question - Hilton Hawaiian village construction and resort fee, (continued)
- Re: IETF-91 Question - Hilton Hawaiian village construction and resort fee, Yoav Nir
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, John Levine
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Nico Williams
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Ralph Droms
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, manning bill
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question,
manning bill <=
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Nico Williams
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, manning bill
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Nico Williams
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Ted Lemon
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Lou Berger
- Re: the ancient location question, was IETF-91 Question, Alia Atlas
- the ancient reorganisation question, was IETF-91 Question etc, t.p.
- Re: the ancient reorganisation question, was IETF-91 Question etc, Lou Berger
- Re: the ancient reorganisation question, was IETF-91 Question etc, t.p.
- Re: the ancient reorganisation question, was IETF-91 Question etc, Abdussalam Baryun
|
|
|