Longer or more meetings?

[Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com]

>Basavaraj> Another thing to note is that the 2 hr or 2.5 hr meeting at =
the
>Basavaraj> IETFs is rarely sufficient. In order to get everything on =
the
>Basavaraj> agenda fit in, chairs tend to close discussions or push it
>Basavaraj> off to the list. This is counter-productive. One way to deal
>Basavaraj> with this is to increase WG meeting times to half-a-day =
slots.=20
>
>That would double the length of the IETF meeting to be 8 days. So this =
is
>another case of needing to find a balance.

If we follow the current format of IETF meetings where the number of
WGs meeting is high, yes the number of days to accomodate all WGs
would double. However if there is a general review of all WGs in the
IETF and move some of the more research type of work to the IRTF and
close some WGs that are non-essential, it is possible that the number
of current WGs could be halved. In such a case, 5 days would still
sufficient.=20

>Also, if 1/2 day is better than 2 hours, why isn't a full day better =
still,
>or 2 days or 4? This, of course, leads to the focus that has been =
developing
>on having interim meetings. As has been noted, however, the implied
>requirement to attend meetings, is exclusionary.
>
>Perhaps the real challenge is to find way to do more work online and/or =
more
>work in design teams that are legitimately responsive to working group =
rough
>consensus?

I agree with your thinking above. Design teams (with a lead editor) are =
definitely more
responsive. And if we really look closely at any active piece of work
being done in the IETF, the number of key contributors are
limited. Hence it is possible to form a pseudo team that meets via
teleconferences in order to make progress. The chairs need to
facilitate this and hence should be considered as something to be
added to the current RFC2418.

>
>d/

BP

>--=20
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
> TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
> t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850