John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
jk> (1) We have usually thought that the IETF is at its best when the
jk> vast majority of participants are designers, implementers, and people
jk> with primary product responsibility rather than, at the other
jk> extreme, professional standardizers. For at least some
jk> organizations, having to commit regular blocks of time (or very long
jk> blocks of time) to specific standards work will trigger the same
jk> sorts of "are those people too valuable to do this or can we commit
jk> fewer or less valuable people" reviews that are sometimes triggered
jk> by meetings in resorts or other exotic and/or other places that are
jk> perceived as exceptionally expensive or attractive to tourists.
yn> Note that this is about virtual interim meetings, or as non-IETF
yn> people call them - conference calls. Blocking out one or two hours
yn> every two to three weeks is not that big a deal to employers. There is
yn> no travel approval, no flight, no hotel, no several day absence, no
yn> expense report. It's a phone call (or Webex or some kind of WebRTC
yn> thing). This is nothing compared to a F2F meeting, where I'm gone for
yn> 5 days and have probably spent a total of one more day on all the
yn> stuff around that.
I was also surprised that John would connect use of conference calls with
a move towards "professional" (really really really large 'airquotes' from
me here) standards people. (It surprised me greatly, but I generally try to
stay away from organizations where these so-called-professionals nest)
I think that we are now at a very happy mid-point where it is really easy
in a number of WGs where new people can join calls (and yes John, email lists)
in many cases, essentially without any permission from management. I think
that leads to a much easier transition to when the person asks for actual
travel: they are more likely to be truly active contributors, with real
active drafts.
I think the critical thing is that virtual interims are well minuted to
emails, in a timely fashion, and that the technolog is accessible.
To the extent that webex has been used in the past as a cheap conference
call system (where many participants use the computer access, but until 2
months ago, that feature was available on only few platforms) it has been
okay. Slides were distributed in advance and no assumption about screen
sharing was made. Some groups have, however, overused this and excluded
people with non-legacy desktops or who have unmutable corporate firewall
policies. I have cried foul over a few years, but it appears that webex's
webrtc system seems to be more fully deployed. appear.in has worked well,
even sometimes through corporate firewalls. JITSI(.tools.ietf.org) has
sadly, not be as resilient.
My request to the IESG is to clearly ask the IAOC to get a real SLA
on the use of a single consensus tool. That we write a BCP about what
ports it uses, such that an IETF contributor can say, "Dear IT, please
enable RFCxxxx access for me"
yn> FWIW, I also believe that, as we get better at interim meetings,
yn> conference calls, etc., we should be able to consider cutting back
yn> week-long f2f meetings to maybe two per year rather than three, with
yn> the advantages again being the ones you cite.
I also have this goal. I suggest however that we initially approach
this differently: that we consider that we could cut back the length of
the week (with fewer simultaenous tracks), because many groups will have had
a virtual interim in the 3-4 weeks prior to the meeting.
This also means changing the ID submission deadlines, perhaps making them
under control of WG chairs rather than global.
jk> Your points about cross-fertilization and English stand, but a virtual
jk> interim is a far cheaper way (for all participants and their
jk> employers) to get a 1- or 2-hour slot for a WG meeting.
yn> Agreed. What I'm trying to push on a bit is the assumption that I
yn> thought I heard during the plenary, i.e., that interim meetings, in
yn> quantity, should be encouraged as a better way to do work than email
yn> and occasional "everyone gets together" IETF plenaries. It is, to me,
yn> a matter of finding and keeping the right balance, rather than going
yn> overboard on any one approach.
My experience is that the virtual interm meetings *reinforce* the use of
email, while our in-person meetings often do the opposite :-)
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature