General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Keith Moore]

> The majority of interim meetings I have been at have been really
> useful. I encourage interim meetings, actually, as long as the
> chairs can constuct a focused agenda & 'stuckees' can attend ;)
> Actually, the presence of ADs are very important as well, because
> often key decisions get made at interim meetings & having AD
> buy-in is usually needed.  Finally, it is probably useful then
> to present the results of the interim meeting at the next WG
> IETF meeting (& on the mailing list), to ensure that the WG
> approves of the outcome.

I also think interim meetings can be a good thing.  However I have seen one WG
that did essentially *all* of its work at interim meetings - with essentially
none on the mailing list, and none at normal IETF meetings (at which only a
few of the WG regulars would show up).  Those interim meetings were
deliberately chosen to favor a particular group of participants.  And this was
a group that desperately needed clues from elsewhere within IETF - protocol
design expertise, for instance.

I don't mention this as on objection to interim meetings, but only to point
out that there is a potential downside.  Interim meetings can be good ways to
reach closure, but they can also be effective means of excluding input.

Also, unlike some of the other problems I've been citing, this is an extreme
case - I've only known of one WG to do things this way.