Is this really where we want to go? (was: Re: Selecting leadership, take 2)
john.loughney@nokia.com
john.loughney@nokia.com
Sat, 7 Dec 2002 09:16:49 +0200
Hi Randy,
> maybe shortness of meetings actually is a problem.
>=20
> most other sdos have much longer wg meetings. not that i am
> enamoured. but if it really would speed convergence and increase
> quality, i would have to seriously consider it.
One problem about the current IETF meetings is they they are=20
pretty full, from morning to night. We pack an awful lot into
4 days. However, I would like to see Friday be used still as a
working day. At least for me, if I fly for a meeting, an extra
half day or so is not a problem.
> and, as someone here or maybe wgchairs list said, few wgs get a
> serious piece of work out without an interim. =20
I agree. Interims are actually helpful, as they help focus the group.
onto the real issues and you get a lot less spectators.
=20
> is a consequence that it becomes *very* hard to be interested in
> many wgs without being a [hisssss] 'standards professional'? and
> would it lose us what i see as a real benefit, folk with wide
> perspective?
I think that IETF-ers having wide perspectives really does help, but
we should not kid ourselves that for most of us, the IETF is not
nearly a full-time job by itself (at least if you want to do it
right).
John L.