--On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:17 -0400 Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of > going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2... That is why I didn't suggest "going to 2" but dropping the f2f count to two _and_ insisting that WGs hold interim virtual meetings. Those meetings would, given competent management, impose deadlines too. And, if you read my (admitted sketchy) suggestion, you would note that it essentially forces each WG into four meetings a year if it wants to meet f2f twice. So, if you want to look at it that way, for WGs, it is a proposal to change three f2f meetings a year to four meetings a year, but with only two of them f2f. As others have pointed out, that doesn't solve the "water cooler" problem. It would probably require some rethinking of how we handle BOFs, WG creation, and other tasks. But the question, IMO, is whether we really need three f2f full meetings a year to manage those things or whether we could get clever enough to deal with only two of them. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf