![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> If the meeting fees could be lowered over time because > smaller venues are needed 2 out of 3 IETFs, then more > people will be able to participate.
In my case, the meeting fees are small compared to travel and hotel costs.
I think there are some good ideas here.
I find that WG meetings are too short to get anything useful done, and all the issues that would benefit of longer face-to-face discussions are taken to the mailing list before any concrete proposal are fleshed out.
But is the WG the place to have the discussion? In most of the WG's that I attended this week, technical discussions were typically between 3 to 5 experts in the field who know everything about the topic, the rest of the room either couldn't follow the discussion or had nothing to contribute. That means that there are 50 or so people sitting there doing nothing. While I agree that face-2-face discussions are useful, I much rather see the discussion take place in the hallway, then have one person report on the outcome.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.