Re: to pitch or not to pitch, IETF attendance costs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think that WGs need to have virtual interims partway between meetings in
which to hold presentation-style events where the initial problem statement
is provided.  This accomodates the "need" to present, while not wasting
super-expensive meeting time.

This should be at least two weeks prior to draft cut-off date, such that
revisions and suggestions could go into a draft, and there could be some list
traffic about the document.

6tisch has had regular virtual interims and often new work would come up
there.  6tisch and ROLL often need really good pictures to explain things,
and that's what the slides are really good for.  Animated ones even better.

(ps: speaking as someone who has attended more than 50 meetings, more than
2/3 of them at my own consulting companies' expense, let me add: if attending
in person or is making or breaking your work, then you probably aren't
resourced well enough to do the work.  Internet-Drafts don't progress because
you attended a meeting or not, they progress because you spend dozens of days
worth of time reading/writing emails, and writing code.  And, our remote
attendance technology *is* rather good)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux