I would encourage choices which lead to shorter daycount. Whilst I enjoy the hackathon, and the mentor sessions, and the training and co-located meetings, I think in time-terms they are not helping and should be constrained, or curtailed, or focussed. If you demand a does not clash with b does not clash with c does not clash with d enough, the only path out is to lengthen time. I think the people who do hackathon, mentoring and ISOC fellows and policy *maybe* have to morph in substantive ways to 'specialists' in this role, and basically not get to define every WG as a 'must not clash' I think (I have thought for some time) that several highly functional areas of work like MIB engineering should move out of the week. I don't mean to objectify the MIB WG people, I just think that this and a number of other things could probably run as virtuals or asynchronously to the IETF most of the time. I seriously wonder about the spawning of *6* named groups. And, related *dns* groups. It feels like 'divide and conquer' has simply become an expansion of 'a must not clash with b must not clash with c' problem. Maybe, we need ->Less<- WG not more? I would encourage choices which accept we maybe need more steerage how to "do it" in WG time. I am pretty sure I am a net contributor of meeting delay, I can recognize the pathologies: Much less discussion on things in drafts which need f2f time to converge, Much more argument and discussion of what really interests us, which may not usefully promote drafts -> documents closure. Finally, and I say this knowing it points back to me, I think the time-wasters should be encouraged to shut up and sit down.
