Dave Crocker wrote: > >> I agree that interim WG meetings would be useful, but here is a >> further proposal: > > > There are quite a few really good ideas for improvements to IETF > productivity. The problem with taking a particular suggestion and then > adding others to it will be that nothing gets considered in detail and > nothing gets done. > > The original suggestion was quite specific: > > Take the kinds of funds spent by meeting hosts and, instead, have > them become meeting sponsors, with meeting venue logistics handled by > the IETF itself, separately. In return for meeting sponsorship, give > the sponsor various marketing opportunities as the meeting, similar to > what hosts currently enjoy. > > In other words, I am suggesting a single, conceptually small change > to the current model. Its purpose is to permit vastly better meeting > planning than we currently can achieve, due to the delays inherent in > having meeting hosts. This is much closer to the model that most IEEE and ACM conferences use, and it works well. It does, however, require a persistent organization with legal and financial oversight, and who has sufficient pockets to bear deficits occasionally. Joe _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf