On 10 Nov 2018, at 4:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
I would like to start a discussion on the Friday experiment. I, for one, thought that it was a resounding failure.
Thanks, Andy. I had meant to bring this up at the plenary but this is better. I spent Friday sleeping and sightseeing, which was nice but I'd rather have had an extra 60 minutes for my working group. IMO, an already small IETF lost critical mass for friday and it wasn't successful.
Nevertheless, I do agree we should continue to keep an open mind and experiment with tweaks to the meeting format. For myself, I'd have spoken against this beforehand given the opportunity. Perhaps poll testing some ideas would be helpful to the folks doing the planning.
This discussion prods me to share some additional thoughts. There seems to be a growing consensus that online tools are making virtual interims quite productive, especially for groups that are already on-track. TAPS, eg, has had two quite useful interims. I can envision a future where we might make virtual meetings our primary real-time venue (happily relaxing the conflict constraints) and use the f2f meetings for a smaller number of less settled topics: BoFs, plenary discussion, information sharing (like DISPATCH, TSVAREA, or SAAG), or cross-domain (like QUIC or TLS) discussions. I think it would be a good thing if we could find a way to reduce the number of tracks to get a bit more 'shared state' in the community. Maybe a fantasy...
--aaron
