Hi Rogerio,
I agree with you before and now, so we encourage with community_guidance to interim_meetings (to reduce wg_meeting_cost and increase production/work_progress), but not encourage without clear admin procedure. Furthermore, the wg_chair is responsible to involve all participants in all wg_meetings, and to resolve all input_issues within WG mailing lists.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:16 AM Rogerio Mariano - IETF <rogermariano.cala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jari and AB,Thank you for your feedback. I was very humbled to be able to actively participate in this important discussion :-)I agree with you.. I just think that the process of disclosure of virtual meetings, indifferent to the level or importance of the meeting should be more widespread and better structured, the big question and that the process of virtual meetings of the IETF seems to be a bit complex, it is structured for those who already participate effectively (veterans) of the meetings.. for beginners seem to be more difficult to understand ...
We will need a new structure or guidance RFC.
Maybe the chair of the WG(any) can do something, but would still rather not centralized policy, being under the responsibility of the WG chair on how to make this disclosure.
The wg_chair should be guided within an RFC that states how administrating of discussions of issues (open or re-open or closed), also there needs to be a feedback from community on such administration per meeting/issue_solved.
Em 20/08/2015, às 07:15, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:A healthy working group progresses their work in an efficient and timely
manner, using the right tools for the right job. Clearly we should be using
virtual interim meetings as a part of that toolbox. Not as a replacement for
the e-mail discussion or the physical list, but as a complement to them.
The number of interim meetings has grown significantly in the last couple
of years; the IETF seems to be using them a lot today.
They are needed but they need more administartion and feedback, maybe IETF LLC (responsible for ietf_admin_support) can help with that without interfering with technical process but they need to find/feedback statistics/data of progress_percentage in rfc_production/solving_issues.
My picture of an ideal working group meeting is that it has detailed draft reviews
on mailing list, resolving difficult issues on virtual meetings on a relatively frequent
basis, and having bigger discussions on face-to-face meetings. Examples of those
bigger issues include decisions to adopt new work, or resolving issues that
need broader set of participants for the discussion. In the meetings you are likely
to get that broader set of people that is needed for these kinds of works.
I agree we need to determine important_topics for f2f_meeting, and important_topics for interim_meeting.
IMHO, the topics should not be the same, however, all topics can be discussed within f2f_meeting if there is time, so there should be priorities related to presented topics.
(You can also contrast this against some common failure modes, like working
groups that do not have enough mailing list or virtual interim work, but still
meet physically, working groups that have unresolved debates on mailing
list but do not organise suitable virtual or real meetings to properly handle
those issues, etc.
I agree with that, we need to find those WGs if available, and ADs should guide or close.
Best Regards
AB
