Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual I

Yoav Nir <ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
    >> I read the document, and I replying to Harald's point form summary
    >> because it captures my concern in fewer words.
    >>
    >> How can I reconcile: "Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings
    >> should be the exception"
    >>
    >> with:
    >>> - An expectation that virtual interims will become more commonplace
    >>> over time
    >>
    >> 6tisch has had 1hr virtual interim meetings approximately every second
    >> Friday since the WG was chartered.  Perhaps 20 of them occured in each
    >> of 2014 and 2015.

    > So how many show up for a virtual interim vs how many for a physical
    > meeting at IETF week + those who join through jabber/meetecho ?

For the WG that I am active in (that I attend the virtual interims), if I
were to fairly count, I would count only the people who said something at the
MIC, and/or posted something to the list.

There are perhaps 3 to 5 people who come to the meeting because they are
already there who do not show up to the virtual interims.
The total number of people who are really active is less than 20.

    > Perhaps more appropriately: is there an identifiable group of people
    > who participate in the regular meetings but can’t manage to join in the
    > interims?

I believe that there are some people who do never participate in the interims,
but I would say it's because they are more "monitoring" the WG, than
participating.  If anything, the opposite is true: people who attend the
virtual interims regularly, but haven't travel funds.

    > We’ve all heard (and said) at regular meetings: “this is the sense of
    > the room, we’ll take it to the list” Then this gets posted to the
    > list. Then somebody asks a question about this decision, and they get
    > the “oh, this was discussed extensively at the meeting.” So yes, all
    > decisions can be reversed on the list, but poorly-attended interims
    > tend to solidify the cabal. At least, that has been my experience.

Consider HOMENET: a 2 day virtual interim meeting in 2010 finished with a
solid idea about architecture and protocol, and nearly every single decision
that the group took was picked over *at length* over 5 years, often festering
forever.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature