Hi John,
On 6 Oct 2014, at 12:15 am, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
I note that we once had a (fairly firm) rule against interim
meetings close to an IETF one unless the WG also planned a
meaningful meeting at IETF because they effectively encouraged
people to attend the interims and skip the IETF one. We also,
IIR, had a general principle that, except under rare and unusual
circumstances, a WG that didn't meet at IETF meetings didn't get
to hold f2f interim ones either. The latter was justified by
the observation that the IETF wasn't really adding value to the
WG (and, btw, WG participants who didn't attend IETF meetings
didn't contribute anything to IETF finances) even though the WG
still consumed management, I-D, tracking, and other resources.
A breakdown of those resources would be interesting. Since the ADs are
volunteers, I suspect most of the cost to the IETF is in the latter phases
(mostly the RFC Editor). I also suspect it’s covered by a WG that meets at more
than a handful of IETF meetings.
Such a WG could essentially become a separate body with a
fast-track IETF approval process, and (despite a few recent de
facto exceptions that I personally think violate at least the
spirit of the way IETF does things) the community has steadily
resisted fast track standardization procedures.
Somehow those restrictions and their advantages for wide
community review and participation seems to be slipping away
from us.
That’s one way to look at it.
I see it more as keeping the work relevant to an audience that will result in a
standard that’s more connected to real implementations, and real developers,
rather than being dominated by standards professionals / “the regulars.”
In particular, “wide community review” is very much a two-edged sword. There is
indeed very high value in getting cross-area review; IME having sessions that
explicitly pull in a different part of the community is extremely productive,
and very good use of time in the IETF week. OTOH if we use this excuse to tilt
the table to overly advantage those already ensconced in the IETF community
(with budget to go to each meeting, and three extra weeks a year to spend on
them) over those who don’t have such privilege, we’re going to lose touch (and
rightly be punished by the market).
From what I see, there’s already a pretty high level of cynicism about the
IETF among the developer community, in part because of this. As in all things,
I suspect it’s a question of balance, and I’m saying that the pendulum has
swung too far one way.
Two days is useful when you can focus everyone's attention
on the matter at hand; I'm not sure whether having such a
meeting during the circus that is the IETF week — when
people will inevitably want to duck out for a few hours to
attend other meetings — would be useful. The experiment to
seat people differently during the IETF week meetings is very
interesting, though.
Then we have found the limits of our abilities as an
organization.
I don't know that I would go quite that far. However, it is
clear to me that any WG that regularly needs multiple days of
meetings, or even more than about four or five hours or face
time within a week (or month), has shifted from "most of the
work is done on mailing lists" to either "most of the work is
done face to face" or what Marshall Rose might have described as
a meeting primarily focused on the fine lunches and dinners.
One can always go to far. The trick — again — is to find the reasonable balance
that’s appropriate to the situation.
Independent of debates about whether "do work in meetings"
versus "do work f2f" is ultimately a better model, it is clear
that the latter tends to increase the cost burden for anyone
participating in more than one activity and to drive
participation/membership more toward those who can prioritize
standardization activities over other types of work and demands
on time.
As it should be. The bias should be towards those who *don’t* participate in
more than one activity, but who are meaningfully connected to the problem
spaces we’re trying to address. By nature, they will not be able to prioritise
standardisation activities; their time is precious and we should optimise to
accommodate them, lest we becomes so disconnected that they pursue other paths.
I am profoundly uninterested in being part of a talking shop of the “old boys”
who turn away outsiders because they think they have all of the answers. That
is not the role of standardisation.
...
I am not saying that your pace was wrong, but your last phrase
is. There is nothing that requires someone to stay the entire
week at an IETF meeting.
Except that, if one defers making air (and often hotel)
reservations until the IETF schedule is stable (or gets
unrestricted fares to avoid change fees), those costs increase
very significantly. Also, if IETF scheduling results in two WGs
of interest, or two meetings of the same WG, separated by
multiple days, the de facto effect is to require staying almost
all week.
Thank you, well said.
Registration actually pays for the services you use
(rooms, staff, RFC Editor, etc).
And I continue to believe that remote participants (distinct
from mailing list-only) ones, should be assuming some small
fraction of those expenses, especially those not bound to the
physical meeting. I think that, as well as a more formal
registration procedure for remote participants, would be
important in principle even if it did not significantly change
the revenue picture.
I tend to agree, provided that we can offer a sufficiently high-quality remote
participation experience to justify it, without unduly burdening the work.
Having people pay even a nominal fee tends to line up the incentives nicely...
Given the number of interims
you had, that was a LOT of air travel AND hotel. I'm not
saying it was wrong, but it was expensive.
I'm not recommending this, but it would be interesting if
someone, someday, appealed the issuance of a two week IETF Last
Call on products of a WG that did a very large percentage of its
work in interim meetings. That would be on the grounds that the
work was not adequately exposed to the broader community to
justify a short Last Call and, consequently, that it work should
be treated more like an individual submission for Last Call
purposes.
Indeed. It’d also be interesting if the IESG did so without the necessity of an
appeal, demonstrating the wisdom for which they were presumably appointed.
Regards,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/