On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 3:20 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This is one of the reasons I would like to see the IETF move towards a
>> W3C style plenary in which WGs are required to provide short
>> introductions to what they do. No, not status reports: an elevator
>> pitch.
> We actually had similar plenaries, long ago, as a way to keep the
> broader community informed about what individual WGs were doing. First
> thing Monday mornings, as I recall.
Yes, my first IETF, 36 had that. By IETF40, they were gone, considered a
waste of common time. There clearly was some value that we are now partially
missing.
It is precisely the sort of exercise that like not repainting, you can miss once or twice without issue. But if you stop doing it altogether you suddenly realize was necessary.
And what really annoys is that we keep being told that the value of having the meetings we do is that the areas can cross-fertilize.
This is also the sort of thing that has a lot of value for new members and less for the old hands. So the folk in authority get rid of them because they don't need them but they are blind to the fact that they have just pulled up the drawbridge for new participants.
There have been a few IAB Tech plenaries and SAAG presentations that fall
into the elevator pitch. Tiru Reddy most recently did one on DOTS, for instance.
HOTRFC as well
