Matt Pounsett wrote: > for the two or three wg meetings I'm > interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a > whole week. > > What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for > each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF? That would > bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the > admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a > wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel > stay for a lot of people. Depends on how much overlap there is for attendees. How many people want to attend meetings in both (say) security and applications, or transport and RAI? This is an empirical question that could be answered through surveys. Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings? Are three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years? Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few potential benefits here: 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code. 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches. 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :) Just a thought... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf