My two ag. > > IETF Community, > > During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that > the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more > time for discussion of general architectural issues in the > former. We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in > its usual slot on Wednesday night and the IAB one on Thursday > evening. The latter was well-attended and our perception was > that at least some of the discussion was helpful. At the same > time, several members of the community told us that they would > have liked to participate, but could not be present Thursday > evening. We also believe that these discussions are useful to > the extent that we can focus on specific topics and discourage > speechmaking that takes up extended periods of time. > > So, we have several questions and request comments and > discussion either to the IETF list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or the IAB > one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do > so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or > occasional schedule? > I think that the split is useful, and allows for more in depth discussions. I would like to see the two meetings happening at each IETF.
> * If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on > Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more > radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at > this point). > I do not know if this is a radical change, but what about swapping the current Monday evening and Thursday evening - i.e. make Monday the evening for the IAB meeting, and Thursday evening a full 2.5 hours meetings slot? > * Do you have major architectural themes that should be > addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? > > * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it > better to let people explain their views at whatever length that > takes? I am an adept of democracy which IMO is translated in this context as free speech within the limits of decency. Regards, Dan >
