Den 11. des. 2015 12:16, skrev Benoit Claise: > Hi, >> I'm happy to see Adrian pointing out that this is an update, not a de >> novo policy. >> I'm not so happy to see that the IESG didn't include this information >> (and a "what's changed" summary) in the announcement. > Yes, thanks to Adrian and you. I'll take to blame for not setting the > context correctly. > > Yes, this is a tentative replacement for > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html (written in 2008) > The goals are multiple: > - recognize that there are more virtual interim meetings these days > - clarify the procedures, for face-to-face versus virtual > - be more flexible for the virtual meetings > > IMO, more virtual meetings is a condition for the IETF to move faster. That's perhaps the part that's worth discussing... my experience and experiences I've been told about varies a lot: - W3C has one physical meeting a year + many interims. I'm not sure what to say about their speed - variable? - but it seems on the same order of magnitude as IETF. - ECMA is apparently addicted to long weekly phone conferences, and has a reputation for both being massively exclusive ("only standards-goers can stand those calls") and being slower than IETF/W3C - MPEG has 3-4 physical meetings a year, interims are very rare, and work between meetings in most parts seems to not involve either email, teleconferences or face-to-face meetings (everyone seems to be working on their own). It's probably slower than IETF/W3C. I wouldn't say that more interims necessarily makes things faster. Having the *right* interims and the right *kind* of interims probably will. So what do we want to encourage? > > Regards, Benoit >> >> Attached is a wdiff (with some line formatting added by me). >> >> Important points: >> >> - Formatting: Face-to-face and virtual meetings each get their own >> bulleted list of requirements. >> - More positive noises about mailing lists in the introduction. >> - Acknowledgement that some WGs hold bi-weekly or even weekly interims >> - An expectation that virtual interims will become more commonplace over >> time >> - A statement that the rules in this statmement "must be obeyed" >> - New rules for approving extended sequences of virtual meetings >> - Virtual meetings get shorter timelines (4->1 week for announcement, >> 2->1 week for agenda) >> - Uploading to the datatracker of minutes get mentioned >> >> The biggest deal seems to me to be that virtual meetings in series >> (right up to weekly!!!!) are now a blessed IETF procedure. >> >> Personally, I feel that weekly meetings can be *very* effective - but >> they are also *very* exclusionary. The number of people in a working >> group who can tolerate another weekly phone call in the average working >> group is likely counted on one hand - perhaps two if the WG is intensely >> popular - and these will usually be the people who are already full time >> committed to the design that is being pursued. >> >> My impression is that we should call these meetings "editor meetings", >> "design team meetings" or something else - but expecting a *WG* to show >> up at weekly phonecalls is a Really Bad Idea, and we shouldn't encorage >> more WGs adopting such a practice. >> >> Harald >> >> >