Hi Jari,
Thanks for asking! Here are some quick thoughts (although I will not be in
Seoul):
o We have also heard repeated calls for stricter time allocation control by
the IESG, in that only some working groups or maybe no working groups should
be allowed extensive use of meeting hours (2x3hrs etc).
I don't think there should be a strict rule about this. It all depends on where
a WG is in its life cycle. Sometimes there is a real need for in-depth face2face
discussion, but not quite enough to merit a full interim meeting. Sometimes a
long interim meeting is essential. Sometimes the mailing list is working well
and there are few issues that deserve f2f time.
A WG that *consistently* claims that it needs 6 hours of f2f time is clearly
in trouble and probably deserves drastic action by the AD.
So I think this is a matter of AD judgment - with a clear preference for short,
efficient sessions, but the option of longer sessions when well justified.
Q1. Please confirm that the community wishes that we arrange more
unstructured time for work to happen.
Up to a point. I used the 9-10 a.m. time in Berlin, but I didn't like the later
lunch
and dinner times that resulted. And I saw fewer people having organised
breakfast
meetings than normal, so the time between 7 and 9 a.m. was probably less well
used.
Q2. Would you like to either keep the amount of meeting time from Berlin, or
reduce it so that an additional hour(s) can be used for design team meetings
and other unofficial interaction?
Definitely don't reduce it. The main reason Berlin worked well for me was the
large amount
of *space* for informal meetings, not the schedule.
Regards,
Brian