On Jul 22, 2004, at 6:30 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I think it comes back to:
a) some groups probably shouldn't meet as often
b) some groups perhaps shouldn't exist at all
c) some groups need 6-10 hours of continuous face-time in which they
can actually get things done. We have pushed such things to
interim meetings, sometimes with success, sometimes without.
The problem is that these groups get 4 hours at IETF, easily
fill that, and still feel that they didn't get everything done.
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the IETF meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even nudge groups into making some additional progress ("you can't have your meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones").
BTW, regarding the survey: there's only been 80 responses so far. My take is that people don't care about the issue enough to voice their opinion.
--aaron
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf