John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The other question I would ask is why that WG has never met at
> an IETF meeting? Would you and the participants not find value
> in possible participation from those are are not heavily
> involved or at least already on your mailing list? Do you not
The participants do not have travel budget. It's a small (8-10) group.
They are open source developers, largely unfunded, or funded through consulting.
We could have a meeting during plenary week, but all that would do is make
those of us who do participate in multiple WG experience more meeting
conflicts.
We move our March meeting to the first week of April, the November meeting to
the beginning of December (with no end-of-December meeting), and we cancel
the July meeting entirely.
See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cellar/meetings/
The majority of our work is done on ML and github issue/pull-request.
We would welcome more participation from "the rest of the IETF", but it is
indeed very specialized.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
