Hi Ted,
On 4 Oct 2014, at 2:53 am, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I wonder if we can't do something between "finalize down to the minute" and
get blocks of time that aren't a week long. In apps, for example, do "web
stuff" in one block and "email stuff" in another. Solidify that early and
you will get some improvement. It won't help for cross-area concerns (HTTP
and WEBRTC, for example), but it might help some.
That would be nice, but I suspect it would make the task of setting up the
agenda even more difficult for those that do it.
* Freezing the day pass fee (and raising the “full week” fee proportionately)
I don't follow this. Making the fee proportional, I agree with, but
subsidizing the fee out of increased fees for those who do more (and
potentially more cross-area work) isn't right. It might not do that now, but
freezing it would lead you there eventually.
People who do full-time standards can more easily justify paying a higher fee;
for engineers it's already touch-and-go.
* Allowing WGs to hold interim meetings without being required to meet at
the adjacent IETF meetings
So, this was forbidden to avoid regional cost shifting when the majority of
participants were either U.S. or northern European; it was specifically to
prevent folks from ditching a meeting in Asia and holding an interim instead,
because it punished those coming from further. I think we still want to
prevent that sort of exclusionary behavior, can you see other ways that do
that? E.G. making the interims in the same region?
Requiring interim meetings to be geographically distributed (and not just based
upon existing participants' preferences) would do it, I think; this is what
we've tried to do in HTTP (we've done one in A/P, 3 in North America and 3 in
Europe; if we have another it'd be in A/P).
I note that you do not list "foster remote participation methods and tools"
as a way around the lack of low-cost alternatives. I've heard you talk about
it, but you might want to explain why a bit more here, since it is salient to
where we invest.
I have mixed feelings about remote participation. I think we can do a lot
better on tools, but at the end of the day there's huge value to having people
in the same room (and in the hallway, and going out to dinner). Often, it
makes the difference as to whether an effort can be successful. So, I want to
make it as easy as possible to get as many of the active participants in the
same physical place at least a few times as is possible. Making them expend an
entire week to do so doesn't help.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/