Nico… it was a proposal, not a statement of fact. See “for a novel
suggestion…” at the beginning of the para.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 12August2014Tuesday, at 19:00, Nico Williams
<nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 06:40:19PM -0700, manning bill wrote:
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:
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
The IETF meets *three* times a year.
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.
why does it not work for you? are you being prevented from
participating in multiple areas?
Many would be, yes. If the IETF were to have 6 or more meetings a year
for different areas many attendees would not be able to attend as many
meetings as might be relevant to them. Six weeks a year is a lot to be
away from work! Even if you make each meeting shorter, it's still a
problem.
Besides that, we get a lot of benefit from having people from many areas
talking to each other in hallway meetings, bar BoFs, and so on. If you
split up the group then a lot of the network effects will be attenuated.
or do you want to kill the organization effectiveness because you want
to optimize your travel schedule?
What's with the attitude? Ah, yes, I remember, this is
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org :/
It's always possible that the IETF will indeed get too big. But look,
we can always meet in Las Vegas; they have venues big enough. In the
meantime, that's not the main problem.
Nico
--