Nico… it was a proposal, not a statement of fact. See “for a novel suggestion…” at the beginning of the para. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 12August2014Tuesday, at 19:00, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 06:40:19PM -0700, manning bill wrote: >> On 12August2014Tuesday, at 16:20, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 13/08/2014 10:45, manning bill wrote: >>>> So - for a novel suggestion. Split the IETF areas into autonomous >>>> entities that run their own meetings, in essence franchising the >>>> IETF model. The IETF itself only meets bi-annually and only to > > The IETF meets *three* times a year. > >>>> coordinate areas. Size concerns dissipate, the number of >>>> available venues goes up and related costs go down. >>> >>> Actually, that's an old suggestion. It certainly doesn't work for >>> me: I regularly attend meetings in at least three Areas, and am >>> happy to sit in on others to improve my general knowledge. >> >> why does it not work for you? are you being prevented from >> participating in multiple areas? > > Many would be, yes. If the IETF were to have 6 or more meetings a year > for different areas many attendees would not be able to attend as many > meetings as might be relevant to them. Six weeks a year is a lot to be > away from work! Even if you make each meeting shorter, it's still a > problem. > > Besides that, we get a lot of benefit from having people from many areas > talking to each other in hallway meetings, bar BoFs, and so on. If you > split up the group then a lot of the network effects will be attenuated. > >> or do you want to kill the organization effectiveness because you want >> to optimize your travel schedule? > > What's with the attitude? Ah, yes, I remember, this is ietf@xxxxxxxx :/ > > It's always possible that the IETF will indeed get too big. But look, > we can always meet in Las Vegas; they have venues big enough. In the > meantime, that's not the main problem. > > Nico > --