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

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To this I'd add:

• The "virtual interim" meeting announcement should make it clear (in the subject line as well as the text) that it's for the specific purpose of reviewing proposed new work for potential adoption by the WG.  (I assume these announcements go to the IETF announce list like any other meeting announcements, but it's easy for things to get lost in the noise.)
  
  
• There should be some way of evaluating this experiment to see how well it works (for both WG members and others).  e.g. run a survey of both WG list members and participants and see how well it worked for them.   (Two things I will wonder are whether these meetings were productive for those who attended, and also whether the meetings were sufficiently visible and accessible for those who didn't attend.)
  

Keith

On 5/15/19 2:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

Aaron Falk <aafalk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    > This is an intriguing proposal. As a wg chair, I can see the utility of
    > having a virtual interim to present a new draft or topic for the wg before
    > making a decision on whether to put it on the agenda. If you did it early
    > enough, it might inform wg conflicts and event IETF attendance. A side
    > benefit is that interim agendas are broadly announced and may reach folks who
    > are not otherwise tracking the wg. I think I’ll try this in the TAPS wg the
    > next time a new topic comes up.

Further thoughts...  in order to socialize this better, it would be good if
we followed some kind of semi-common process.  This might mean:

1) at IETF(n-1), the chair slides might say:
   a) deadline for considering new documents is DATE(IETF(n) - 8 weeks)

   b) a virtual interim meeting about said documents will occur during the
      week of DATE(IETF(n)-6 weeks). [Exact day/time TBD, Meeting will be
      recorded]

2) WG chair collects requests to consider adoption, notifies the ML, and
   schedules a virtual interim meeting.

3) virtual interim occurs, with any oral questions being captured into an
   email minutes to the list.  Possibly one email per major question.
   This naturally generates ML traffic if there is interest.

4) if there is much excitement, then the WG could start an adoption call, and
   the document could become a WG document before IETF(n)!
   This also means that we get a really good introduction presentation,
   not constrained by end-of-WG meeting, here is "3minutes" talk fast..

Is this worth an RFC3999 ID?

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