There has been a marked increase in the number of interim meetings. Using http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html as a guide, there were 18 in 2011 35 in 2012 45 in 2013 84 in 2014 13 in January 2015 alone. With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering some of our practices historic. Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the IETF web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other times not. Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did produce slides or recordings and so presumably happened. Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue Sheets?). Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and Attendees. The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, 14 more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, increasingly the only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, they may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a discussion of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the issue or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option 3 so it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the earlier meeting. Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as posts to a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their view was. Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a future date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what options were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be impossible. A post in another thread recently said > I do think that the increased significance of meetings > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows > work down. Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree with the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived at by whom. Tom Petch