Re: What? This thread is talking about *voting* now?

[Bob Hinden]

+1

Bob

On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> It's really annoying when a thread drifts to a wildly different topic
> without somebody thinking to change the Subject header.
> 
> My comments on nominees would be much less frank if I knew they
> would be published. In fact, I doubt if I would make any at all.
> 
> Here's a comment I sent in a number of years ago.
> 
> "Arrogant, sometimes rude, not interested in listening to other
> people. I think  would be an abysmal AD."
> 
> In public? I don't think so. The whole idea of honest feedback only
> works when kept confidential.
> 
> As for voting, I understand Mary's frustration at the lack of
> participation, but this really must not become a popularity
> contest and certainly not be put at risk of capture by companies
> or countries that send a lot of people to meetings. After all,
> this thread started out about how to *not* need to go to meetings.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 2011-10-27 16:00, Ross Callon wrote:
>> Mary;
>> 
>> Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom 
>> to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without 
>> hearing these comments?
>> 
>> Ross
>> 
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary 
>> Barnes
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:52 PM
>> To: Peter Saint-Andre
>> Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre 
>> mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote:
>> On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> 
 (e.g., the NomCom
 schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
>>> no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
>> Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
>> members vote. Easy.
>> 
>> [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow 
>> anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom 
>> process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the 
>> Nomcom, you can vote.I personally believe that voting would be better 
>> than the current model.  As it is, a very small percentage of the 
>> participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or 
>> providing feedback:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2)
>> 
>> So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually 
>> get more folks caring about who the leaders are.It would also save a 
>> tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom. 
>>  [/MB]
>> 
>> [Also, ducking]
>> 
>> Mary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Martin Sustrik]

On 10/24/2011 07:16 PM, SM wrote:


If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to
follow the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions
are taken during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the
outcome won't change.


As BoFs are held in early stages of development, there's unlikely to be 
much funding for it, no budgets approved yet etc. So, at the BoF 
there'll be couple of experts who managed to get the funding and random 
selection of IETF folks who drop in just because they happen to be around.


That can be either bad thing (too few experts, no good estimate about 
participation in the potential working group) or a good thing (random 
selection of IETF participants tests the sanity of the proposal).


In the former case it would be better to hold BoFs via conference calls 
or similar means. In the latter case the existing model works OK.


For example: We have a discussion group of ~50 people that we would like 
to change to IETF WG, however, it's not likely more than 2-3 people 
would be able to get to the BoF in person.


Martin
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Melinda Shore]

On 10/26/11 7:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

I'm hard-pressed to see how an IETF-wide voting mechanism will produce
better results than the current Nomcom process. It would be a simpler,
less stressful process, but it would also be less informed.


Feh.  This one's easy: vote for the individual who'd sponsor your
individual submission.

Works great, right?

Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

What? This thread is talking about *voting* now?

[Brian E Carpenter]

It's really annoying when a thread drifts to a wildly different topic
without somebody thinking to change the Subject header.

My comments on nominees would be much less frank if I knew they
would be published. In fact, I doubt if I would make any at all.

Here's a comment I sent in a number of years ago.

"Arrogant, sometimes rude, not interested in listening to other
people. I think  would be an abysmal AD."

In public? I don't think so. The whole idea of honest feedback only
works when kept confidential.

As for voting, I understand Mary's frustration at the lack of
participation, but this really must not become a popularity
contest and certainly not be put at risk of capture by companies
or countries that send a lot of people to meetings. After all,
this thread started out about how to *not* need to go to meetings.

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-10-27 16:00, Ross Callon wrote:
> Mary;
> 
> Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to 
> become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without 
> hearing these comments?
> 
> Ross
> 
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary 
> Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:52 PM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
> 
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre 
> mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote:
> On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> (e.g., the NomCom
>>> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
>> no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
> Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
> members vote. Easy.
> 
> [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow 
> anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom 
> process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the 
> Nomcom, you can vote.I personally believe that voting would be better 
> than the current model.  As it is, a very small percentage of the 
> participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or 
> providing feedback:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2)
> 
> So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually 
> get more folks caring about who the leaders are.It would also save a 
> tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom.  
> [/MB]
> 
> [Also, ducking]
> 
> Mary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Dave CROCKER]

On 10/27/2011 5:00 AM, Ross Callon wrote:

Mary;

Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to
become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing
these comments?



The general implication of Ross's question comes from the entirely predictable 
fact that most folk in the IETF are not all that involved with more than a 
narrow range of other folk and do not know much about IETF management, or even 
that much about process.


Nomcom creates a small group of folk who spend a great deal of time getting 
much, much more familiar with people, tasks, requirements and process.  It does 
this at massive effort cost to those doing the actual work, of course, and it 
certainly would be nice to find ways to reduce that work.  (My own preference 
continues to be to ensure that a portion of Nomcom voting members has direct 
experience doing IETF management tasks, producing RFCs and equivalent, deeper 
involvement in the IETF; that is, ensuring that the voting members are 
guaranteed a base level of knowledge about the IETF.)


I'm hard-pressed to see how an IETF-wide voting mechanism will produce better 
results than the current Nomcom process.  It would be a simpler, less stressful 
process, but it would also be less informed.


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Requirement to go to meetings

[Ross Callon]

Mary;

Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to 
become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing 
these comments?

Ross

From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary 
Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:52 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre 
mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote:
On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> (e.g., the NomCom
>> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
>
> no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
members vote. Easy.

[MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow 
anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom 
process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the 
Nomcom, you can vote.I personally believe that voting would be better than 
the current model.  As it is, a very small percentage of the participants 
actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or providing 
feedback:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2)

So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually get 
more folks caring about who the leaders are.It would also save a tremendous 
amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom.  [/MB]

[Also, ducking]

Mary.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Mary Barnes]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >
> >> (e.g., the NomCom
> >> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
> >
> > no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
>
> Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
> members vote. Easy.
>

[MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow
anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom
process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the
Nomcom, you can vote.I personally believe that voting would be better
than the current model.  As it is, a very small percentage of the
participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or
providing feedback:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2)

So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually
get more folks caring about who the leaders are.It would also save a
tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom.
 [/MB]

[Also, ducking]

Mary.



>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[John Leslie]

t.petch  wrote:
> From: "John Leslie" 
>> t.petch  wrote:
>>> From: "John Leslie" 
>>>
 But _why_ is that something "holding up a working group"?
>>>
>>> Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of
>>> the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a
>>> response to LC comments etc.
>>
>> This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list!
> 
> You surprise me; I would say that many if not most of the IETF
> WG lists I track run along those lines, with bursts of activity
> starting about the time the cutoff for I-D submission is announced,
> and finishing soon after the I-D submission window re-opens.

   I won't dispute your data...

> In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair, but more often
> for the document 'editor'

   Yes, I see this a lot. :^(

   Sometimes it's worse: the document 'editor' doesn't meet the cutoff
and we wait for the next cutoff.

> (and yes, I know that ADs are a precious and scarce resource whose
> intervention should not be called on).

   Nonetheless they _do_ tackle such situations -- often it's recorded
in the Narrative Minutes without naming names...

> A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor.

   Actually it's quite easy: if both WGCs agree, editors can be changed
for any reason at all, or even no reason in particular.

   The problem is, the new editors usually suffer the same symptoms.

> I strongly believe that the IETF process, of change control of a
> WG I-D being vested in the WG, is absolutely right

   +1

> and it goes wrong when either the creator of the individual
> submission goes on regarding it as their own property, making
> changes without waiting for list consensus on changes,

   Hmm... I see that a lot, too... It's not always bad, but it does
tend to slow the process.

> or, more often, when they do not make changes, in a timely manner,
> for which there is a consensus.

   I don't see as much of that -- of course most WGCs don't call
consensus quickly enough, in which case it's not exactly the
document editor's fault.

   IMHO, the happiest situations are where the document editor
responds to (almost) every suggestion, usually suggesting text for
how to clarify the point raised. Then the WGC calls consensus
when the comments die down.

   Alas, few WGCs choose document editors that will do this...

> If the chair could say, without offending anyone, please
> incorporate these changes within nn days, with the option,
> when that does not happen, to get someone else to make them
> instead, then documents would come sooner and, IMO, be
> of a higher quality.

   There ain't no such thing as "without offending anyone".
I suspect, however, that WGCs _could_ say something like that
privately and solicit what amounts to a resignation of the
document editor in question.

   The problem, IMHO, is that most WGCs have no idea how to
find someone to replace the document editor in question. My way
would be to announce the resignation; then say, "If nobody
volunteers to become document editor, we'll drop this from our
milestone list."

   WGCs, IMHO, take too many responsibilities on themselves; and
burnout too often follows. :^(

--
John Leslie 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> (e.g., the NomCom
>> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
> 
> no problem. We stop having the nomcom.

Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
members vote. Easy.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Fred Baker]

On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> (e.g., the NomCom
> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).

no problem. We stop having the nomcom.

(he ducks)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[t.petch]

- Original Message -
From: "John Leslie" 
To: "t.petch" 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:06 PM
> t.petch  wrote:
> > From: "John Leslie" 
> >>> --On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
>  ... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done
>  on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can
>  take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's
>  holding up a working group.
> >>
> >> But _why_ is that something "holding up a working group"?
> >
> > Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of
> > the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a
> > response to LC comments etc.
>
>This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list!

You surprise me; I would say that many if not most of the IETF WG lists I track
run along those lines, with bursts of activity starting about the time the
cutoff for I-D submission is announced, and finishing soon after the I-D
submission window re-opens.  In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair,
but more often for the document 'editor' (and yes, I know that ADs are a
precious and scarce resource whose intervention should not be called on).

A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor.  I strongly believe
that the IETF process, of change control of a WG I-D being vested in the WG, is
absolutely right and it goes wrong when either the creator of the individual
submission goes on regarding it as their own property, making changes without
waiting for list consensus on changes, or, more often, when they do not make
changes, in a timely manner, for which there is a consensus.

If the chair could say, without offending anyone, please incorporate these
changes within nn days, with the option, when that does not happen, to get
someone else to make them instead, then documents would come sooner and, IMO, be
of a higher quality.

Tom Petch
>
> > Harking back to Melinda's comment, this is where chairmanship comes
> > in; the good chairs will chivy, poke and prod so that the hold-ups
> > are minimised...
>
>The WGC cannot always manage this alone...
>
> > And sometimes WG chairs should prod ADs, sometimes vice versa.
>
>ADs don't have as much time available for this as you think...
>
> > What is difficult in our structure is for those without a formal role
> > to insert a chivy without causing offence;
>
>A "chivy", almost by definition, is bound to cause offense. But
> a posted question, expecting an answer from a WGC, can be effective.
>
> > this is where face-to-face, with its vastly richer communication
> > channel, is superior.
>
>True, but three times a year isn't often enough. :^(
>
> --
> John Leslie 
>
>

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Requirement to go to meetings

[Christer Holmberg]

Hi,

I don't have an opinion regarding the number of f2f meetings. But, as we've 
discussed before, I think we could make more out of the summer meetings 
(considering any e-mail etc activities taking place before and after them) by 
moving them away from the main summer vacation period.

So, no meetings in july and august.

Regards,

Christer




From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
Saint-Andre [stpe...@stpeter.im]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:38 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings

On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
>>
>>>  the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier
>>>  and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
>>
>> I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a
>> number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper
>> to attend.
>>
>> One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been
>> brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US,
>> as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and
>> Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average
>> attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost.
>> It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start
>> to work.
>> ...
>
> Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that
> would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of
> the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding
> virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time
> conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days.
>
> Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two
> a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it
> back to four.

Reducing the number of meetings a year from three to two makes sense.
Naturally, we'd need to work through the implications (e.g., the NomCom
schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).

Plus, it's a natural complement to having reduced the number of maturity
levels from three to two. ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 10/26/11 10:17 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back
> to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...

Use virtual interim meetings (etc.) as a forcing function. There's more
than one way to set a deadline.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Donald Eastlake]

Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back
to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre  wrote:
> On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
>>>
  the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier
  and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
>>>
>>> I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a
>>> number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper
>>> to attend.
>>>
>>> One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been
>>> brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US,
>>> as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and
>>> Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average
>>> attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost.
>>> It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start
>>> to work.
>>> ...
>>
>> Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that
>> would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of
>> the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding
>> virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time
>> conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days.
>>
>> Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two
>> a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it
>> back to four.
>
> Reducing the number of meetings a year from three to two makes sense.
> Naturally, we'd need to work through the implications (e.g., the NomCom
> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
>
> Plus, it's a natural complement to having reduced the number of maturity
> levels from three to two. ;-)
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
>>
>>>  the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier
>>>  and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
>>
>> I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a
>> number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper
>> to attend.
>>
>> One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been
>> brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US,
>> as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and
>> Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average
>> attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost.
>> It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start
>> to work. 
>> ...
> 
> Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that
> would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of
> the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding
> virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time
> conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days.
> 
> Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two
> a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it
> back to four.

Reducing the number of meetings a year from three to two makes sense.
Naturally, we'd need to work through the implications (e.g., the NomCom
schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).

Plus, it's a natural complement to having reduced the number of maturity
levels from three to two. ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Requirement to go to meetings

[Dave Cridland]

On Sun Oct 23 17:19:23 2011, Melinda Shore wrote:

On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to  
mailing lists?


In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group chairs,


I'd add the cultural problem that no matter how many RFCs I author, I  
shall forever be barred from taking part in (for example) NomCom  
unless I show up to meetings in person.


While we instill a requirement to attend meetings to be a "real" IETF  
participant, we'll require people to attend meetings to do "real"  
participation.


Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf