----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaretw42@xxxxxxxxx> To: <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:32 PM On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:26 AM, <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Starting an idea in the meeting privileges only those who are in the room. It is more complicated than that… <snip> There are some IETF WGs that operate differently. They do their work on the mailing lists and have "interim" meetings or telechats as needed that are organized on their WG mailing list. Some of them don't even meet at IETF meetings, because they see no value in presenting their work-in-progress to the masses. It would have an unfortunate impact on our revenue stream if more groups started operating that way, as our main sources of income are tied to attendance at plenary meetings, but maybe more groups should try this sort of thing, anyway? Does anyone have any other ideas about how we can get back to a point where most of our decisions are made by people who are active on the WG mailing list and interested in the work of the group year-round? <tp> Margaret You have answered your own question with the preceding paragraph. Meeting at the IETF plenaries makes the work in the course of a year tri-modal and very uneven. Meeting at the IETF plenaries encourages people to 'PowerPoint' when the approach that works best for the IETF is to write an I-D. Meeting at an IETF plenary makes people leave it to the day, instead of getting on with it by e-mail. The logic is impeccable - do not meet at an IETF plenary and the work will progress better and faster. If something comes up that needs discussion, then do not wait for the next IETF plenary - hold an Interim Virtual as soon as possible and get back to progress. We are engineers and can see the logic of this - it is up to the financiers to address any financial consequences. (And to the psychologists if the meetings fulfil the need for a jolly:-(. Tom Petch Margaret