|
Hi, Nalini, Melinda & Ted, Although there are meetings in various regions for IETF awareness, they are not really IETF meetings. The secondary meetings in my mind are actually
working meetings first. That’s why Ted said it “would require a lot of regular IETFers to sign on and get support for going”. I personally believe it is feasible because the current three meetings per year is actually slowing down many WGs’ pace. It is one
of the reasons that IETF’s standardization work is slow. Some 3GPP WGs could meet almost 10 times per year! Of course, not every WG need extra meetings. The requirements from various WGs are different. But it is never discussed! If you asked the WG chairs
the question of how many f2f meetings per year are ideal for their WGs, in my guess, over 1/4 WGs would like to meet more than three times. But WG chairs are lacking of logistics for f2f interim meetings. It is also difficult to get contributors to travel
for a single WG interim meetings. But if there are 20 WGs interim meetings together, it may be a different story. I don’t think we will lose the key contributors for those active WGs in such meetings, although there may be less “steady” audience. This may
give the chance for both accelerating WG’s work and serving diversity purposes. Also, participants may have more time to discuss new works or more details, giving more relax on the total agenda. The scale of such meetings could be much smaller, I guess, like
300 participants. It would give more flexibility and agility, too. Best regards, Sheng From: nalini.elkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nalini.elkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Yes, there would have to be work to do. Today, there are meetings in various regions for IETF awareness. At times, ISOC chapters and /or NOGs are quite involved.
We also have quite a bit of activity at remote hubs (or community hubs) or whatever we are calling them. I would like to hear from Sheng about what his ideas are for these "secondary" meetings. Of course, then, we need to
be clear about what the goals of such activities are and to coordinate well with other existing activities. Nalini On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote: On 6/12/16 10:06 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: This is a great idea, but would require a lot of regular IETFers to sign
|