User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
Philip,
Is there really a demand for interim
meetings that cannot be supported in IETF regular meetings? We
meet 3 times a year, why isn't that enough? I don't know of
any W3C working group meeting more than three times a year.
Rather than trying to pile requirements
onto interim meetings, can we work out a way to accommodate
these needs in regular meetings?
I would like to suggest we go a stage
further and change the way the IETF meetings work.
People are having interim meetings
because a one or two day meeting on one topic is a lot more
productive than an IETF WG session.
Or because weekly meetings are more efficient.
Regards, Benoit
For certain types of work and at
certain stages, a concentrated meeting is the only productive
approach.
W3C has always taken this approach,
they have one annual meeting and a series of interims. The
annual meetings are structured like an academic conference
with a plenary track and a series of breakout tracks on one
topic.
Now we can't and should not change
every IETF meeting structure because a lot of IETF work is not
of the type that benefits from this mode of work and those
that do do not necessarily benefit all the time.
But we could arrange one IETF on the
W3C format as an experiment.
There are pros and cos to both ways of
working. I don't see that we have to limit ourselves just to
one approach.
Early in a WG lifecycle I just want to
spend two days doing nothing apart from working through the
issues list and kill off all the bike shed issues. Later on
when getting close to completion you might want to have
another bootcamp to close off all the open issues. In between
you probably want more of an update.