Is there any existing mailing list where the topic of virtual IETF
meeting can be moved to ?
I checked the manycouches archive and the last post was from me in
april. If thats the only place where the discussion was supposed to
happen until now, i can only conclude that there is not enough energy
in the community itself to come up with proposals.
Then again, manycouches is not listed on the non-wg mailing page, so
i don't even have an idea how that list could have been created, but
if it was done so hush-hush, maybe thats a reason why there isn't much
traffic on it.
I can see how you want to push the ask to people who should do it
as part of their job responsibility (LLC), but hasn't past experience
shown that that the community is mostly not happy with stuff where
its not involved in the process ?
Aka: Instead of trying to only ask to outsource to LLC or the like
and come up with baked solutions, maybe it would be better to ask
someone with a job responsibility to take a lead with at least an
experiment first.
Eg: Lets have one AD coordinate a virtual interim for just one area. Maybe
two..three days. Maybe two tracks in parallel. One doing educational
presentations to attract audience to WGs (PPTX highly welcome, please
also post questions upfront to presenters), and one doing actual work
on documents (PPTX mostly despised ?), and the webex for the work
meetings could be independent of each other, so people can stay on
the channels and work overtime if they don't have conflict (its not
as if the rooms cost real money).
Aka: experimentation shouldn't only save travel pains but also attempt
to improve on other shortcomings of our physical meeting structure (such as
in my example the conflict between finishing draft and educating
interested candidate participants as well as physical limits on number
of rooms).
Cheers
Toerless
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:27:00AM -0400, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Don, others who think three meetings are the right number,
>
> > On 25 Jul 2019, at 10:46, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I am also in favor of keeping three meetings a year.
>
>
> Why three? Why not four, two, five?
>
> Here is my claim: we can fly less and be more effective. I am asking simply that the LLC in consultation with the IESG test that statement by finding the right questions, collecting and analyzing data, and then bring the results of their analysis with recommendations to the community for our consideration.
>
> I take seriously the need for hallway conversations, hackathons, ad hocs, in addition to our formal meeting time. That has to be taken into account.
>
> But it has been some 28 years since we went to three meetings per year. Let???s please do the work to understand what options we have. That???s my request. Do you disagree?
>
> Eliot
