Eliot, On 4 Oct 2014, at 4:48 pm, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Your own group benefited from cross area review, both from transport and > security. Now it is true that area directors and one WG chair flew to > your interim meetings. But normal people didn’t. I don’t see how this is relevant; I’m not asking to avoid cross-area review, or to eliminate meetings during the IETF week. Both are valuable. Regarding “normal people” — I do not think that means what you think it means... > I think you are > asking for something else, however: more time at the main meeting. That’s largely orthogonal, and AIUI more time *is* available to those who ask, space permitting. > And > that I could get on board with. It would not be easy logistically, but > I think it is worth an experiment, at least. What if you found yourself > with 2 days of meeting time? And how much would that be worth to you > and your company? Two days is useful when you can focus everyone’s attention on the matter at hand; I’m not sure whether having such a meeting during the circus that is the IETF week — when people will inevitably want to duck out for a few hours to attend other meetings — would be useful. The experiment to seat people differently during the IETF week meetings is very interesting, though. > And while I am not against interim in person > meetings, the pace you proceeded at did substantially increase the cost > of participation. On the other hand, maybe it will be worth the > results. We cannot yet say. We proceeded at the pace dictated by our charter. This was very deliberate; I can’t ask engineers who aren’t standards professionals or academic researchers to invest an open-ended number of years into an effort. And, considering the ever-raising costs of coming to an IETF week (to return to the original thread), the cost of attending an interim is substantially less than going to the IETF meeting. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/