> Other organizations have proponents explain what they are proposing. > IMO this leads to a better quality of discussion. Those other organizations often do *all* their work and take all decisions in their face2face meetings, while our main venue is our WG mail list, and face2face meetings are only complimentary, where we can get higher bandwidth for discussion, and resolve tricky issues. The mistake we (as chairs) often do is when we do not plan meetings based on what issues actually require face2face meeting time, but instead just make an agenda covering all ongoing WG items (and documents), and often also completely new individual contributions that are not in our charter. The latter sometimes motivates taking face2face agenda time, but that should still be done first when the item (based on an internet draft) has already been discussed on the mailing list so that the WG is aware of it. If face2face time then is needed to get a better understanding and discussion about the issues, then that would be good use of face2face time. /L-E _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf