Longer or more meetings?

[Marshall Rose]

> (this is substantive, so I'm starting a new thread)
    
john - at the risk of discussing solutions on the "problem-statement"
mailing list, let me continue...
    
> Problem: Face time of a few hours three times a year is not 
> sufficient to make progress.  Many WGs discover that they need 
> interim meetings to really move forward.
> 
> Suggestion: Insist that WGs conduct interim meetings so they 
> could face off in day-sized units, not slots of an hour or two 
> duration.  At area option, cluster these interim meetings into 
> several-day sequences, with overlaps and sequences to be 
> determined by the ADs.  Cut full IETF meetings back to once a 
> year, and focus their schedule around interactions, 
> cross-fertilization, and cross-checking within and between areas 
> and on issues of IETF-wide importance.
> 
> Possible downsides: This might push us toward professional 
> standardizers.  It might reduce the quantity and quality of 
> ...
> 
> Possible useful side-effect: if we made it clear that we expect 
> ADs to get to most of the interim meetings of their WGs, it 
> would provide a powerful incentive to them to keep the number of 
> WGs in their areas small and of brief duration.

this is one of those strategy v. tactics things. i agree with the
problem, but i'm wondering if there's a different way to solve it.
    
for example: the PACT I-D has an 18 month timeout on WGs getting their
first I-D approved. it doesn't say how the WG has to behave in order to
do this (e.g., monthly interim meetings, daily teleconferences, cattle
prods), it just says do it in 18 months or you die.
    
there are some folks who don't like having arbitrary deadlines like
this. however, if you s/arbitrary/external/, then all we're talking
about is a management technique. based on henning schulzrinne's comments
on sip's experiences using the 3gpp calendar as a deadline, perhaps this
isn't such a bad thing. dave crocker seems to think the same thing of
the faxwg and the itu's external deadlines.
    
philosophically, i remain convinced that "longer" does not equate
"better" once you get past one year, so i'm happy to see the IESG impose
milestones (which they do today) and enforce them (which they do
not). the 18 month rule proposed in the PACT I-D attempts to provide
some uniformity, since the people who write and negotiate milestones
seem to focus more on the minutia than the philosopical principle...
    
/mtr