Re: Time to encourage interims instead of main meetings?

[Rogerio Mariano - IETF <rogermariano.cala@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi friends,

I've been following this topic since the first email sent by Phillip Hallam. I speak from Brazil and participate in IETF initiatives for Latin America and the Caribbean. First, I agree with many points inserted for you, especially if you take into account the wear with long trips and the whole process for this trip occur in relation to the type of meeting. There is an initiative of the IETF-LAC Task Force Group (http://www.ietf.org/blog/author/jari/page/3/) whose Chair Alvaro Retana has run numerous remote sessions very successfully and accompanying for many participants to meetings of the WGs, much of them as pce, 6Io, mpls, spring, anima... as in the last IETF 93. I mean that there are face-to-face meetings that are extremely important and it does not matter if they are two or ten, these meetings need to be really happen.

However, if we consider that most matters are handled by the lists of early way, why the IETF does not encourage the use and participation of remote sessions in a more expressive way? Why the IETF does not create a default document type "IETF Remote Hub Technical Guide" to guide and instruct the participants? This initiative is made similarly in ICANN and ISOC. I think this way, increase the participation and inclusion of people from different regions in the IETF meetings, would be a good way to reduce costs and improve a lot the statistics on the perception of the IETF Mentoring Program, and optimize the process of physical meetings.

Best Regards,

Rogério Mariano 

rogermariano.cala [at] yahoo [dot] com    

http://icannwiki.com/Rogerio_Souza

PGP Fingerprint: 3005 9905 69C4 9931 126A  039C F33C 1E9A 972D B675

Em 18/08/2015, às 14:15, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:

Historically there has been a pushback on a WG holding an interim meeting instead of meeting at an IETF main meeting. Yes, cross-WG communication and all that.

However, looking at my schedule, I really can't see myself justifying what will be a two week interruption to fly out to Yokohama for a two hour meeting and more importantly, I don't think many of the folk who I would be looking to collaborate with at that meeting will either.

Now that IETF main meeting time is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the old view that interim meetings should not be a substitute for having a session at a main meeting and instead start encouraging that for certain types of work.

Particularly early on in a WG, a two day interim can be a lot more use than a two hour main meeting event.