Fred Baker wrote:
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think - w have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in our time. I would often like to allow a discussion to be longer, for the same reason that we meet f2f in the first place - No, cramming things in tighter isn't the solution.
Fred, This seems to be a classic example of taking a specific counter-example and asserting that it generalizes for the whole. I believe it is the single-most damaging problem with how we publicly discuss change. Anyone promoting a point of view is going to find an example to support it. What we need, instead, is a sense of "typical", to use as the base for our consideration. Yes, we also need to consider outliers, but we need to treat them as such. We have working groups that are very well run. If, indeed, v6ops is an example -- I have no knowledge and therefore no opinion -- and if that type of working group is typical, then your conclusions probably should apply to this topic. But I believe it isn't typical -- indeed, I believe what you describe is a long way from typical -- and therefore it shouldn't be used as a pivotal basis for formulating strategic aspects of change. At the least, when anyone puts forward a particular example, they need to explain why anyone should believe that that example applies more generally, both in terms of the group and in terms of individual participants. (Some don't mind hitting the weekend, others do.) If we believe that most IETF working groups are doing productive work and most IETF meeting time is well-used, but it isn't sufficient, then yes we need more meeting time. If either of these two predicates do not apply, then we do not need more meeting time. We need changes in how we assign and use the time already available.
The thing that surprises me in this discussion is, frankly, the representation of it as an "experiment".
+1
The question is whether the meetings are effective, and whether the Secretariat finds it easier to meet the various demands placed on it. I don't see how "more resources" can avoid making the Secretariat's job easier. The question is how we use them.
While agreeing with your last sentence, I think the rest of your paragraph contains the trap of assuming that more/bigger is always better. I bet you don't really mean that. For example, it does not make the Secretariat's job easier for them to have to work more hours...
d/ ps. Even if we decide that the average group is not well run and doesn't need more time, there will of course be productive, well-run groups that do, indeed, need more time. They should get it. Oh, wait a minute, they already do. They need even more? OK, give it to them. Even at the expense of other wgs... -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf