On 2008-07-19 04:21, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Marshall,
>> > It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
>> > here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
>
>> Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
>> but I never said that we have rules that *prevent* teleconferencing. To
>> elaborate, my understanding is that the rules for teleconferencing are
>> governed by the rules for interim meetings, which require something like
>> one month's advance notice plus attendance requirements at the previous
>> IETF, and a minimum period of time between meetings. I regret I can't
>> locate the citation right now. I also think AD approval is required.
>> And the reason I think all of these things is that we came close to
>> having an appeal on the matter in one of the groups in which I am active.
>
>> What I would suggest is that f2f requirement be eliminated, that the
>> notice periods be reduced to two weeks, and that AD approval not be
>> required.
>
> +1
I don't think f2f meetings have ever been compulsory, have they?
There have certainly been WGs that have avoided them once the
work was well started.
I agree that 2 weeks notice is usually enough for any form of
teleconference, but some people may find it hard to reschedule
things, so more notice is always better. 4 weeks is an absolute
minimum for a meeting requiring travel.
I guess the AD approval for f2f interim meetings was put in place
to allow for a check that the general open-access requirements
are being met, and to ensure that the AD can actually attend
the meeting personally. If that became a WG chair responsibility,
there would need to be a clear way for people to object, which
would end up as an appeal to the AD anyway.
>
> I will also note that telling people they cannot meet to discuss things is
> about as effective as telling water it cannot flow downhill. In practice
> what
> often happens is that some small and highly motivated subset meets and
> discusses things privately, rules be damned.
I think we all know that such small discussions are often the source of
breakthroughs. afaik that has never been forbidden, but by definition
such a discussion cannot claim to define WG consensus.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf