Longer or more meetings?

[Marc Blanchet]

-- samedi, d=E9cembre 07, 2002 21:04:12 +0200 Jari Arkko
<jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote/a =E9crit:

> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=20
>> This sort of assumes a view of IETF as a place for vendors to
>> collaborate on deciding what a standard should be. Naturally, in such
>> a venue, your participation is important to the extent to which you
>> can bring implementors and product to the party.
>> =20
>> However, the IETF has a tradition of not accepting this model, in
>> favor of one in which we are all attempting to collaborate to do the
>> Right Thing. In such an environment, what's relevant isn't the market
>> throw weight of the participant but the value of their ideas.
>=20
> I agree, and doing the Right Thing is very important.
>=20
> However, this isn't a black and white issue. No one has suggested
> a complete switchover to meetings-only process. We already have
> physical meetings that cost a lot to participate particularly
> if you don't reside in the US; there is a practical requirement
> to devote significant amount of time if you want to participate in
> any meaningful way; and our technology is in many cases quite
> advanced and complicated to understand. So we are not going for
> an all-free participation to a bigco-only approach!
>=20
> I think we should keep the mailing list still as our official
> agreement place. However, I believe we also need increased
> meetings, be it teleconferences or physical ones. So the issue
> is if the current ratio is right. I think it needs to be adjusted
> (but not reversed).
>=20
> Perhaps the teleconference approach might be good. This works well
> at least for small groups such as design teams. Does someone have
> experience on running it as a more open meeting for all interested
> parties?

Or the text versions of teleconference (like jabber)?


Marc.

>=20
> Jari