Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am fairly disturbed with where this discussion has ended up

Me too. A little empathy could go a long way here (as in so many things). That's a property of good leadership.

I think Cullen Jennings has it right - its 201[67] and we can do better. so we should.

On the bigger question of meeting logistics I personally would like to see 1 plenary meeting a year and a massive increase in interim working group meetings which tend to produce much higher rates of decisions and a focus on the work at hand.

The IETF does not, imo, generate enough output to justify ~6x3x1200 travel days a year. For a thin slice of the membership the 3x5 day model is quite efficient, but for a whole lot of folks it creates significant overhead. Flipping that burden would decrease the barrier to entry while still allowing for a periodic cross politicization. I'll note that Mark managed to have the HTTP2 interims visit all three of our traditional regions (which also reflected the active participants of the wg.) and that logistics for smaller groups are simply easier in many many ways.