On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 4:04 PM Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +1, except that i do not think a decision to change in-person > meeting frequency would one where normal "rough IETF consensus" would suffice. > > Normal "IETF consensus" as for WGLC/IETF-last call really always only > reaches a part of the members of the community interrested in thre subject > matter. For something like changing meeting frequency, we can not > do this, because i think there is just a big risk of a lot of > bias in the active technical community. Such as in manycouches. I have strong reservations about this line of reasoning, or maybe I agree and really want to push back on the limits. It's true that a lot of people are not going to get involved in a discussion of something even if it affects them, like meeting frequency but would vote on changing it. And many people wouldn't vote but would still grumble afterwards. On the other hand with meetings specifically the current status quo disadvantages participants in Oceania and South America. Between that and wanting to reduce carbon emissions/we made remote work before we should I think be willing to experiment and learn from it. IACR has done a much better job, but granted that doesn't have the same issue around needing a lot of the same attendees at each one. > > I'd like to see something like "strong IETF consensus" to be defined. > Should involve some significant majority of a questionaire based > feedback round. > > Given how with dwindling travel budgets in many involved parties, a > lot of participants that can only afford to go to IETF in person once > a year in their region would like this frequency to go down to less > than once a year. Would like, or would not like? > > Cheers > Toerless Sincerely, Watson
