On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:11, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
Not meeting at every IETF sounds plausible, until you get to the point
about which meeting to leave out. Of course one could decide not to meet
when there's really nothing to discuss F2F, but for a long-going active
WG, how likely is that?
I think we really should consider reducing the number of meetings to 2
per year (at most), and then think hard how to compensate for that:
- more *virtual* interim WG meetings
- improvements to cross-area review: move last calls to a mailing list
other than ietf-discuss (good suggestion, Mark!), and also see how we
can get more review from outside of the WG *before* IETF LC
Well.
I would love to see more (virtual) interim meetings for WG introspection, and then use the IETF week for more outward presentation.
That is, use WG sessions in the IETF weeks for WGs to show ongoing work and seek feedback from across the area, and IETF as a whole. I think this happens, to some degree, anyway - but it'd be nice to see this as a focus.
If lots of people travel halfway across the world just to hide away in little groups for a few meetings, then this just doesn't seem to add any real value to me. It's more cost-effective if they hit a virtual call more often to handle the high-bandwidth, F2F needs. (Or just used XMPP, but there's my bias). But since Interims and IETF meetings are considered the same thing for the same reason, WGs can't hold an Interim easily (unless that's changed recently?).
Dave.
