On 11/12/2015 22:59, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Brian, >> Hi, >> >> I find these two statements somewhat inconsistent: >> >>> Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings should be the exception and not the norm >>> Recurring meetings (recommended if much debate is expected), may be scheduled together, with a single announcement. > I don't understand the inconsistency. > For example in NETMOD, we scheduled bi-weekly meetings until all open issues on a specific document were addressed. > It doesn't mean that by default, we have recurrent meetings, and there is no agenda, we cancel the call. > > Maybe you have an issue with the term "recommended"? Yes. "recommended" and "exception" are really inconsistent with each other. I think the text should be a bit more nuanced. Something like Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings should be considered when numerous specific issues need to be debated, but are not the normal mode of operation. . Recurring meetings (used only if much debate is expected), may be scheduled together, with a single announcement. >> Also, I think that in the bullet list for virtual interim meetings, a >> significant point (for some of us) is missing. Something like: >> >> . IETF participants live in many different time zones. This must be taken into >> account when scheduling. Recurring meetings should be arranged at varying >> times of day to share the discomfort of late night or early morning calls >> fairly. > We would need the equivalent of this sentence, currently listed for the face-to-face meeting: > > o The meetings must be scheduled (location/timing) with fair > access for all working group participants. > > Regarding your proposed sentence, we should trust the WG chairs to do what's right, instead of imposing more rules. > With a global community participation, scheduling calls becomes a nightmare. > A WG chair knows who the key players are in his WG (editor, authors, individuals in favor of the different solutions, etc.), > i.e. the persons without without conclusions could not reached ... simply because the discussions would be repeated if they > would be excluded. > The advice to my chairs wrt to interim meetings is: > - to have a successful interim, make sure all the key players are involved/included (*) > - be fair in scheduling for everybody > - anyway we validate the decision on the mailing list for the people who can't attend. > > In the past, I scratched my head on trying to express (*). All tentative sentence appeared as being non-inclusive. > So I would go for a generic sentence, maybe something such as: > The meetings must be scheduled (timing) with fair access for all working group participants. Sure. As long as the point is recognized. Rgds, Brian