On 6/12/16 5:42 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
I personally believe it is feasible because the current three meetings per year is actually slowing down many WGs’ pace.
If so, it's because people are choosing not to progress work between meetings, where "people" include both chairs and editors. By contrast, W3C is able to progress work rather quickly (er, for the most part) and meets only once/year. However, they make heavy use of teleconferences, collaboration tools, and mailing lists. > 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.
I've chaired a bunch of working groups over the years and never felt that way, myself. In a working group I chair currently our editors rarely show up at face to face meetings and while we're a lot slower than we'd like to be I'd say that has more to do with problems that would not be resolved by meeting more frequently or by having editors at meetings. It is a little vexing that in many cases we're being asked to accommodate the needs of people who haven't actively contributed in the past and who don't show an interest in actively contributing in the future. I chaired an ETSI working group (TIPHON Security) a bunch of years ago and don't think that their working style (nor that of the ITU-T, or IEEE, or ... ) maps particularly well onto the IETF, and consequently that it would be inappropriate to force it. Also note that ETSI and 3GPP (and W3C) and so on have designated experts on salary to move work along, and it may be worth considering the extent to which they're able to move work forward by paying someone else to do it. The question of the relevance of IETF standards is inseparable from the question of their implementation and deployment, I think, and the economic model underlying our work is quite different from that motivating the work of the big, traditional telecomm standards bodies. Melinda