Hi, This is my personal opinion, and it's one that states the kinds of things I'd want to think about rather than something that reflects my opinion. I mostly don't have an opinion yet; and I think it's just as well to have this sort of discussion in public, so that's why I'm replying. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:31:06PM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > What I am suggesting to the IAOC is that, over the coming 9 years (27 meetings) One thing that worries me a little bit in discussing that kind of plan is how far out we're talking about, and how much it assumes that the IETF meeting system and pace of meetings will not change in that time. The IETF is changing and is working in an environment which is itself changing a lot. We are seeing quite a lot more remote participation, and there's little reason to suppose that will slow down. The standards environment is changing a lot, too. Many standards are now developed basically as online repositories of code and standard at the same time. The complaint that the IETF moves too slowly and too bureaucratically is heard more often than ever. We are having more interims (most of them virtual). And our population is changing: we are having new people come to the IETF and, of course, some people are retiring. In 9 years, will we still be meeting three times a year? Will the 1-1-1* approach still apply? (Perhaps the vast majority of IETF participants will be coming from India and China, for instance, in which case North America might not be a good regular destination.) Moreover, 9 years is a _really really_ long time past the term of anyone appointed by nomcom. Three years was already past the nomcom horizon, but at least there is an argument that people on the IAOC are likely to come to at least some meetings the year after their term ends. I confess I have no way of forecasting whether I'll still be participating in the IETF in 9 years (given my track record on predicting my own career, frankly, it's astonishing to me when I even have a clue about next week). My first IETF meeting (in person) was 10 years and one month ago, and if you'd asked me then whether I'd still be participating after 10 years I couldn't have guessed. Finally, there's been a great deal of worry about the lack of cross-area review that we get these days, but it doesn't seem to me that the meetings obviously help with that except by accident. It could be that we will conclude that three giant meetings a year (as opposed to, say, area meetings or something like that plus, say, one all-IETF meeting a year) is a bad idea because of the practical constraints. The above are each topics where I have poor knowledge, and where that knowledge would make a difference to how I'd respond to an idea like this. (They're probably not all the topics, but ones that I can think of now.) I just don't know what to think about this. I'd be interested to hear views, especially including those who are perhaps less-frequent contributors to this list, people who've started participating in the IETF in recent years (both at meetings and also not at meetings or only infrequently at meetings), and those who've been arguing that we need to do something to make the meetings less important and return the important work to lists and other such ways of working. I solicit your advice (either on-list or off). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx