Longer or more meetings?

Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:34:38 -0600


> 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!

While face-to-face meetings are unquestionably more productive, it
does have the adverse impact on travel budgets and concerns as such
for many real contributors. So keeping the discussions on the mailing
list for the most part as you suggest is a good thing.

>=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).

Another thing to note is that the 2 hr or 2.5 hr meeting at the
IETFs is rarely sufficient. In order to get everything on the
agenda fit in, chairs tend to close discussions or push it
off to the list. This is counter-productive. One way to deal
with this is to increase WG meeting times to half-a-day slots.=20

If we had hard deadlines for the WGs, the chairs might have an impetus
to decide when to call an interim meeting to make rapid progress.  I=20
believe WG chairs are in a good position to make the call for having=20
interim meetings. And as someone also said the number of *active*
participants in any real WG is quite limited. I think it is quite =
possible
that the chairs could facilitate teleconferences on a regular basis
between these active folks without having to create design teams.=20
This would also be an effective means of making progress.

>=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?

Large teleconferences are not very effective. I think limiting the
number of people is the most effective. Of course white boarding=20
type of features to the teleconference can add value.

>=20
> Jari
>=20
>=20

-Basavaraj