On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:21 AM Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
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...
IETF may will need to have a formula as when do we do three f2f or four f2f per year, IMHO it depends on the technology/RFCs demands and the number of f2f attendance and the accumulated travel distances, and on ietf_data analysis per WG and per Area. Furthermore, we need to know if the WG became a remote WG_meeting or WG_in_person per IETF meeting (i.e. if more than 10 persons are attended then it is not remote_WG_meeting).
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.
There are a lot of wasted time because it does not depend on WG priorities/activities, the Chair or AD need to discuss priorities of time with All participants per WG. In meetings we may see presentations with no discussions per f2f meeting, so I think it is a wasted f2f time, also there are times in plenary meeting with no discussions per long_presentation. So we need shorter presentations for less priority/activities and longer_enough presentation for more high priority/productive_discussions. Furthermore, our f2f meetings help us (remote and person_attended) make better wg_decisions.
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.
yes agree, and that needs to be discussed on the list per WG and per Area, IMHO, the ietf_Area discussion on that issue is not active per future f2f meeting.
Best Wishes,
AB
