Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)
Andy, As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd really have to understand the budget implications. That being said, we should certainly explore alternatives to the present way of doing things. My own experience as a WG chair is that interim meetings are highly effective when starting out on a new effort and consensus has to be reached on fundamentals. I'm less convinced that longer meetings are useful when refining complex documents - that is when editorial teams and issue trackers seem to be effective. As I said the other day, cross-fertilization remains important. It's hard to imagine how we could run multiple in-depth meetings in parallel without losing cross-fertilization. Maybe we could experiment with a meeting with one day (out of 4.5) dedicated to 7 in-depth WG meetings, and the other 3.5 days traditional? Brian Andy Bierman wrote: Harald Alvestrand wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Ray Pelletier wrote: ... A more workable model would be to treat the current type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value in the production of standards-track protocols. The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings. Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings. WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and get them done fast. Decisions validated on the WG mailing list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday. are you seeing these as meetings of *all* WGs, or do you envision multiple meetings, each with some subset of WGs? If (guesstimate) 50 of 120 WGs decide to meet in this format, the number of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 and 30. There would need to be lots of overlap. Lots of preparation for joint-meetings would be needed. Not everybody can work on everything at once. (More accurately, most people won't be able to read email while ignoring the meeting in as many WGs. ;-) Meeting slots would be divided into 3 categories, times, allocations, and proportions decided by the IESG. - WG - intra-area - inter-area This might even lead to more shared work, more cross area review, more consistency. You know -- proper Engineering. (Maybe we have way too many WGs. That problem is out of scope here.) It should take 1 year to get a standards-track RFC out the door. Not 6+ years. The solution is obvious. Quit messing around and get some work done. This turtle pace has got to end. Interim meetings should not be a almost-never way to get work done. Any IETF veteran knows it's the only way anything gets done around here. I'm intrigued by the idea of replacing one or more IETF meetings with large interims, but would like to work through exactly what's being proposed. (Of course, scheduling 2 years out DOES interfere with quick experiments) The meeting slot allocation (General Agenda) is set in stone 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday. BOF agendas are due 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday. WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday. No exceptions. and cancellation on those WGs who do not provide such agendas? Just checking Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course, and better remote meeting participation tools over time. If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more people will be able to participate. The meeting fee represented 41% of the total cost of my attendance to IETF 65. IMO, sponsors at the Plenary meeting would be appropriate, and could help the IETF fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference. My cost for this meeting (VERY rough, off the top of my head): - Hotel: 800 dollars - Food: 400 dollars - Airfare: 1200 dollars - Meeting fee: 550 dollars - Misc: 50 dollars Total: 3000 dollars. Meeting fee percentage: 18%. But we've been around the how much does the meeting fee matter bush before. Next time I go to Europe instead of US, our expense ratios will be reversed. These 2 data points aren't meaningful. Cheaper is better, and how much it matters varies widely between people. Harald Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Andy, As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd really have to understand the budget implications. That being said, we should certainly explore alternatives to the present way of doing things. My own experience as a WG chair is that interim meetings are highly effective when starting out on a new effort and consensus has to be reached on fundamentals. I'm less convinced that longer meetings are useful when refining complex documents - that is when editorial teams and issue trackers seem to be effective. As I said the other day, cross-fertilization remains important. It's hard to imagine how we could run multiple in-depth meetings in parallel without losing cross-fertilization. Maybe we could experiment with a meeting with one day (out of 4.5) dedicated to 7 in-depth WG meetings, and the other 3.5 days traditional? This would be great. If we could get the sponsors who who have paid for the entire interim meeting costs somewhere else chip in, the the IETF could extend room and network services until 8 PM Friday, and we could have Interim Friday. This would have the least impact on regular IETF activities. Since only dedicated people show up to interims anyway, holding them on Friday won't impact the masses in the slightest. Of course, you would need volunteer WGs who even want to have a 1 day interim instead of a 2 hour slot in Montreal. (NETCONF WG volunteers right now ;-) (IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday. Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as anything else.) Brian Andy Andy Bierman wrote: Harald Alvestrand wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Ray Pelletier wrote: ... A more workable model would be to treat the current type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value in the production of standards-track protocols. The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings. Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings. WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and get them done fast. Decisions validated on the WG mailing list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday. are you seeing these as meetings of *all* WGs, or do you envision multiple meetings, each with some subset of WGs? If (guesstimate) 50 of 120 WGs decide to meet in this format, the number of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 and 30. There would need to be lots of overlap. Lots of preparation for joint-meetings would be needed. Not everybody can work on everything at once. (More accurately, most people won't be able to read email while ignoring the meeting in as many WGs. ;-) Meeting slots would be divided into 3 categories, times, allocations, and proportions decided by the IESG. - WG - intra-area - inter-area This might even lead to more shared work, more cross area review, more consistency. You know -- proper Engineering. (Maybe we have way too many WGs. That problem is out of scope here.) It should take 1 year to get a standards-track RFC out the door. Not 6+ years. The solution is obvious. Quit messing around and get some work done. This turtle pace has got to end. Interim meetings should not be a almost-never way to get work done. Any IETF veteran knows it's the only way anything gets done around here. I'm intrigued by the idea of replacing one or more IETF meetings with large interims, but would like to work through exactly what's being proposed. (Of course, scheduling 2 years out DOES interfere with quick experiments) The meeting slot allocation (General Agenda) is set in stone 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday. BOF agendas are due 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday. WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday. No exceptions. and cancellation on those WGs who do not provide such agendas? Just checking Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course, and better remote meeting participation tools over time. If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more people will be able to participate. The meeting fee represented 41% of the total cost of my attendance to IETF 65. IMO, sponsors at the Plenary meeting would be appropriate, and could help the IETF fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference. My cost for this meeting (VERY rough, off the top of my head): - Hotel: 800 dollars - Food: 400 dollars - Airfare: 1200 dollars - Meeting fee: 550 dollars - Misc: 50 dollars Total: 3000 dollars. Meeting fee percentage: 18%. But we've been around the how much does the meeting fee matter bush before. Next time I go to Europe instead of US, our expense ratios will be reversed. These 2 data points aren't meaningful. Cheaper is better, and how
Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday. Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as anything else.) This is an interesting suggestion. Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on hallways discussions, during the rest of the week. However BOFs are a specific class of meetings that tend to need this more than most. BOFs are trying to gain interest and even a good BOF will tend to engender some fuzziness, with resulting efforts at clarification. This often benefits most from the combinations of smaller discussions that are so common during IETF meetings. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)
For what it's worth, this approach seemed to work reasonably well for the SIP P2P BOF + ad-hoc (or interim) meeting. The former was on Tuesday, the latter on Friday afternoon. Dave Crocker wrote: (IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday. Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as anything else.) This is an interesting suggestion. Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on hallways discussions, during the rest of the week. However BOFs are a specific class of meetings that tend to need this more than most. BOFs are trying to gain interest and even a good BOF will tend to engender some fuzziness, with resulting efforts at clarification. This often benefits most from the combinations of smaller discussions that are so common during IETF meetings. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Meeting format (Re: Moving from hosts to sponsors)
Harald Alvestrand wrote: Andy Bierman wrote: Ray Pelletier wrote: ... A more workable model would be to treat the current type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value in the production of standards-track protocols. The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings. Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings. WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and get them done fast. Decisions validated on the WG mailing list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday. are you seeing these as meetings of *all* WGs, or do you envision multiple meetings, each with some subset of WGs? If (guesstimate) 50 of 120 WGs decide to meet in this format, the number of parallell tracks at one monster meeting will run between 15 and 30. There would need to be lots of overlap. Lots of preparation for joint-meetings would be needed. Not everybody can work on everything at once. (More accurately, most people won't be able to read email while ignoring the meeting in as many WGs. ;-) Meeting slots would be divided into 3 categories, times, allocations, and proportions decided by the IESG. - WG - intra-area - inter-area This might even lead to more shared work, more cross area review, more consistency. You know -- proper Engineering. (Maybe we have way too many WGs. That problem is out of scope here.) It should take 1 year to get a standards-track RFC out the door. Not 6+ years. The solution is obvious. Quit messing around and get some work done. This turtle pace has got to end. Interim meetings should not be a almost-never way to get work done. Any IETF veteran knows it's the only way anything gets done around here. I'm intrigued by the idea of replacing one or more IETF meetings with large interims, but would like to work through exactly what's being proposed. (Of course, scheduling 2 years out DOES interfere with quick experiments) The meeting slot allocation (General Agenda) is set in stone 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday. BOF agendas are due 30 days in advance of IETF Sunday. WG agendas are due 15 days in advance of IETF Sunday. No exceptions. and cancellation on those WGs who do not provide such agendas? Just checking Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course, and better remote meeting participation tools over time. If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more people will be able to participate. The meeting fee represented 41% of the total cost of my attendance to IETF 65. IMO, sponsors at the Plenary meeting would be appropriate, and could help the IETF fund a cheaper, more stable, IETF-controlled, conference. My cost for this meeting (VERY rough, off the top of my head): - Hotel: 800 dollars - Food: 400 dollars - Airfare: 1200 dollars - Meeting fee: 550 dollars - Misc: 50 dollars Total: 3000 dollars. Meeting fee percentage: 18%. But we've been around the how much does the meeting fee matter bush before. Next time I go to Europe instead of US, our expense ratios will be reversed. These 2 data points aren't meaningful. Cheaper is better, and how much it matters varies widely between people. Harald Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
