Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am also in favor of keeping three meetings a year.
I am not.
...because three is not enough :-)
The number of conflicts that occur is not going away, and won't on away
unless we kill the right ~25% of the WGs, and anyway, while that might
eliminate many conflicts, it will mean the remaining groups will be much
bigger.
Or we go to two-week meetings with fewer tracks, and more "time off".
Two week meetings provides a better ratio of meeting time/CO2, but is
probably not supportable.
I want to move towards having much more frequent, regular and longer virtual
meetings online. We do this with varying degrees of success with virtual
interim meetings.
The meetecho system is actually far better than many of the available
solutions that we attempt to use, but the meetecho system requires a physical
place as an anchor.
So I like what we concluded at the IETF104 dogfood (manycouches) side
meeting: we need to add a fourth virtual (non-interim) meeting, maybe even a
firth one, before we can remove or change any one of the three physical
meetings.
-- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
