--On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 09:20 +0300 Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4. Apr 2023, at 01:14, Michael Richardson > <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Or we could just start with having three f2f meetings per >> year, with more slots for informal meetings... > > I just wanted to point out that we're seeing a different push > in the IESG from WG chairs, many of which want more WG session > time during IETF meetings. That isn't to say that they > wouldn't also want more informal time, but there is a tussle > here. Per an earlier note, I see at least some of the push for more WG session time almost the same way I see the push for more interims: a move away from relatively inclusive discussions and decision-making on mailing lists in favor of decision-making by whomever can attend a real-time session followed by pro-forma approval on mailing lists. At least IMO, there is no question that real time discussion can be key to sorting out matters of principle or strategic issues that have not converged on those mailing lists. They are, at least IMO, a lousy way to do actual document editing. So that takes us back to variations on the suggestion Eliot made earlier and a question to the IESG: I understand "wanting" more session time but do you have a clear sense --ideally one on which you can report to the community -- about rationale and need? When those sessions occur, are they about presentations, status reports on what the WG is doing, or discussions of open issues? Of the latter, what fraction of them are issues that have been thoroughly discussed on mailing lists but remain unresolved rather than, e.g., ones that have been deferred to or saved for f2f discussions. And, for those WG's who have asked for and gotten more than a one-hour slot, what is the evidence that the additional time was actually marginally productive in issue-resolving or problem-solving? Finally, if the reason why lots of time is needed is because WGs have too many items in their queues (or too much need to coordinate with other groups), are you prepared to review whether they are trying to accomplish too much at the same time to efficiently produce high-quality and well-vetted work? When a specification produced by a WG gets significant and substantive comments during IETF LC I may be wrong, but I am guessing that more focus, more efficiency, and more effective WG management could eliminate the need for very large blocks of in- person time for many WGs at least most of the time. > Additional tracks and/or longer days and/or full-length > Fridays will likely be needed and the community should weigh > those against their downsides for in-person and remote > attendees. Noting Brian's comment about the importance of informal meetings.. While I hate to even think about it, if one is looking only from the "net zero" perspective, an annual, carefully designed, two-week-long f2f IETF meeting would almost certainly be better than three f2f meetings in widely spaced locations. On the other hand, if we say "the main purpose of an f2f meeting is those informal contacts" then fewer f2f meetings, with more focus on getting people there (including optimizing locations to minimize overall costs --financial and otherwise) might be good but longer ones would inevitably increase on-the-ground and away-from-day-job costs. best, john
