Henk Uijterwaal <henk@xxxxxxxx> writes: >>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. > > But is the WG the place to have the discussion? In most of the WG's > that I attended this week, technical discussions were typically between > 3 to 5 experts in the field who know everything about the topic, the > rest of the room either couldn't follow the discussion or had nothing > to contribute. That's my experience too. However, usually there is not enough time for the experts to sort out the issue and arrive at a proposal at the meeting. That means the primary reason for having the current meetings are so that the experts can identify each other and then meet and talk off-line in the hallways. Formalizing that procedure, and enable it to happen remotely at any time of the year may improve productivity. > That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there doing > nothing. While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful, I > much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then have > one person report on the outcome. I think virtual interim meetings may have a similar end result. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf