At 03:20 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, Melinda Shore wrote: >> My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by >> 50% - the same people would come, I think. >> Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about >> others'.... we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but >> many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I >> think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question. > >I hate the idea of more travel, plus I suspect 4 may be >harder to justify to management. However, try as we may to >do things "right," the IETF is increasingly doing its work >at meetings instead of mailing lists. If we can't fix it we >should probably accept it. Also, more regular meetings >might tend to discourage interim meetings, which would be >excellent. I agree. Given that the work of the IETF is centered on the publication of documents, and given that most I-Ds are published near the I-D cutoff deadlines, it stands to reason that IETF productivity will increase by 33% if the number of publication cycles per year is increased from 3 to 4. >Melinda Andy