On 2018-11-12 07:43, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I was disappointed by the number of overlapping sessions for security
> > and having to choose between working group sessions that I would have
> > liked to attend. This did impact some working groups that suffered
> > from light attendance that included having less regular participants.
>
> I had a similar number of conflicts this past week as previous IETFs.
> Typically this is at least four significant conflicts, and 4 or 5
> conflicts where I'd like to know what is going on some new group
> (i.e. wugh), but I can't because I have to be elsewhere.
>
> We need to reduce the number of WGs as well.
One of the IETF natural constants that I have never properly understood
is that the number of WGs ~= 120 over many years. But just to quote
from my public input to NomCom (draft-carpenter-community-leaders):
We expect the leaders not to work too hard. The IESG in particular
works just as hard as it makes itself work. More precisely, today's
IESG defines the work load for its successors, by approving WG
charters. If fewer WGs are approved or renewed today, there will be
fewer drafts to process in two years' time. We expect the IESG to
say "no" quite often. In the case of BOFs and workshops, we also
expect the IAB to recommend "no" quite often. Of course, the "no"
should be clearly explained, and rooted in community consensus and
technical evaluations
If we as a community don't get better at saying "no" this problem
will never go away.
Brian
