Andy Bierman <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > my $0.02: > > Nothing -- not in the current meeting format. > > A more workable model would be to treat the current > type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point > laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value > in the production of standards-track protocols. > > The other 2 IETFs would be Working Group Meetings. > Essentially, this as a collection of WG Interim Meetings. > WGs meet for 1-3 days and mash through documents and > get them done fast. Decisions validated on the WG mailing > list within 2 weeks of IETF Friday. ... > Remote audio and jabber for all meetings of course, > and better remote meeting participation tools over time. > If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because > smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more > people will be able to participate. I think there are some good ideas here. I find that WG meetings are too short to get anything useful done, and all the issues that would benefit of longer face-to-face discussions are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are fleshed out. I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a further proposal: Have open virtual interim-meetings for specific WG work items. A working group could declare to have a two-hour meeting on jabber (and possibly audio) on a specific date to sort out all technical problems with a specific document. The audience will then be more inclined to have actually read the document. If there is an agenda and list of open issues, going through the open issues until there is one (or more) fully fleshed out proposed solution is hopefully not too un-realistic. The proposal can then be written up and taken back to the WG for mailing list discussions. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf