First, new work comes in at different phases, not just in the BoF.
Second, when new work comes in, it is not obvious to folks that they are
interested in it. Thus, they are less likely to make time to attend
virtual interims (or, even worse, actual interims)
Third, due to the nature of time zones, it is VERY hard to actually find
a time when all the folks can make it. Particularly when you do not
know who the interested parties are, as they have not yet had a chance
to see the work and discover they are (or are not) interested.
Yes, this means that sometimes we sometimes use WG face-to-face time to
let folsk with new ideas know that their new idea has lots of problems
or is not of interest. That is not, in my book, a waste of time.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/15/19 6:14 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 05:53:23PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
On 5/15/19 5:34 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
3) reduce presentations from costly in-person meetings
+1 (Except, again, for BoFs, because they are very much about marketing
new work, and they can't be expected to have a virtual interim.
I was wondering if similar virtual interim meetings, except associated with
an area instead of a WG, could replace BOFs entirely.
Maybe, but having been involved in creating two WGs, one of which had a
contentious BoF, I do feel that the energy of the crowd is helpful.
I would be OK with having a virtual BoF as something of an inception
review, specifically so directorates could provide early inception
review. But losing physical BoFs altogether strikes me as a loss, not a
win.
If a virtual interim meeting is not adequate to "market new work", (I assume
you mean it's not sufficiently visible for such a purpose), maybe we should
figure out how to make interim meetings more visible. I'm starting to get
the impression that "interim" meetings are the future of IETF.
As long as we don't end up with basic IETF participation becoming a
full-time job description.
Nico
