Hi friends,
I've been following this topic since the first email sent by Phillip Hallam. I
speak from Brazil and participate in IETF initiatives for Latin America and the
Caribbean. First, I agree with many points inserted for you, especially if you
take into account the wear with long trips and the whole process for this trip
occur in relation to the type of meeting. There is an initiative of the
IETF-LAC Task Force Group (http://www.ietf.org/blog/author/jari/page/3/) whose
Chair Alvaro Retana has run numerous remote sessions very successfully and
accompanying for many participants to meetings of the WGs, much of them as pce,
6Io, mpls, spring, anima... as in the last IETF 93. I mean that there are
face-to-face meetings that are extremely important and it does not matter if
they are two or ten, these meetings need to be really happen.
However, if we consider that most matters are handled by the lists of early
way, why the IETF does not encourage the use and participation of remote
sessions in a more expressive way? Why the IETF does not create a default
document type "IETF Remote Hub Technical Guide" to guide and instruct the
participants? This initiative is made similarly in ICANN and ISOC. I think this
way, increase the participation and inclusion of people from different regions
in the IETF meetings, would be a good way to reduce costs and improve a lot the
statistics on the perception of the IETF Mentoring Program, and optimize the
process of physical meetings.
Best Regards,
Rogério Mariano
rogermariano.cala [at] yahoo [dot] com
http://icannwiki.com/Rogerio_Souza
PGP Fingerprint: 3005 9905 69C4 9931 126A 039C F33C 1E9A 972D B675
Em 18/08/2015, às 14:15, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> escreveu:
Historically there has been a pushback on a WG holding an interim meeting
instead of meeting at an IETF main meeting. Yes, cross-WG communication and
all that.
However, looking at my schedule, I really can't see myself justifying what
will be a two week interruption to fly out to Yokohama for a two hour meeting
and more importantly, I don't think many of the folk who I would be looking
to collaborate with at that meeting will either.
Now that IETF main meeting time is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity,
perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the old view that interim meetings should
not be a substitute for having a session at a main meeting and instead start
encouraging that for certain types of work.
Particularly early on in a WG, a two day interim can be a lot more use than a
two hour main meeting event.