Hi, On 4. Apr 2023, at 21:34, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? We've always trusted the WG chairs to make that determination, and use the different available participation venues (mailing list, in-person and remote interims, in-person meetings, etc.) in ways that is most effective for their WG for their current work items. While some chairs are certainly better than others in doing this, I believe this decentralized approach has a lot of value and is generally working OK. Involving the ADs in this process might seem attractive in terms of oversight and/or to establish a common approach - but it also further increases the AD workload (c.f. the current discussion on the that). There are severe downsides to that. Thanks, Lars
