On 10/01/2016 03:54, John C Klensin wrote: ... > Probably an excellent idea, especially since I can only see four > possible outcomes from any given attempt: > > (1) "We know enough now, form the WG". In that case, we save > calendar and meeting time and are able to get on with the work > sooner. > > (2) "This is conclusively a bad idea or not ready for IETF work" > or "it is now clear that no one other than the author cares". > As with the above, saves time and allows us to get on with our > lives. > > (3) "Don't know enough, need either another virtual meeting or > an in-person BOF". In that case, we haven't really lost > anything and probably have more information than we would have > had from mailing list discussion alone. > > (4) "Couldn't make a determination, due eitherto lack of > attendance by key people or some technical issue.". As with > (3), little has been lost and we can always hold a physical BOF > under traditional rules if needed. Speaking from the time-zone-challenged corner, I see a high risk of hitting (4) rather frequently. Of course you can argue that there is also a high risk of hitting (4) with face2face BOFs at unpopular destinations. That said, it does seem worth a try. Brian > Each of those seems to me to be a win, although in different > ways. Equally useful, if we encouraged people to hold these > virtual sessions well before the request cut-off date for > in-meeting BOFs, those who requested them will be able to submit > normal request if needed, will have more information, and IETF > work will be better spread out between meetings. > > best, > john > >