Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Matt Pounsett wrote:
>  
>
> > for the two or three wg meetings I'm
> > interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a
> > whole week.
> >
> > What about holding two or three meetings smaller meetings a year for
> > each area, and then just one big meeting for the full IETF?  That would
> > bring down the cost of the individual area meetings and therefore the
> > admission fee, make them smaller and therefore capable of fitting into a
> > wider range of hotels, and would likely result in fewer nights of hotel
> > stay for a lot of people.
> >    
> Depends on how much overlap there is for attendees. How many people want
> to attend meetings in both (say) security and applications,
I am certainly in this group. I don't think I am alone ;-).

> or transport and RAI? This is an empirical question that could be answered through
> surveys.
>
> Further, in-person meetings are so second-millennium. How about greater
> use of text chat, voice chat, and video chat for interim meetings?
I am in favor of this, but I don't think this can replace many ad-hoc 
meetings on yet-non-specified topics that happen all the time during 
IETF meetings.

> Are three in-person meetings a year really necessary if we make use of
> collaborative technologies that have become common in the last 15 years?
>  
As long as the number of face-to-face meetings is not 0, this might be 
something to think about.

> Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile
> standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP
> by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather
> than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP
> extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a
> denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few
> potential benefits here:
>
> 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code.
>
> 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches.
>
> 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :)
>  
+ Less cross area review.

I would rather you try to standardize XMPP extensions in IETF and see if 
this would actually cause any DoS.
(Well, maybe not all of them. Some XMPP extensions should probably die 
inside XSF ;-))

> Just a thought...
>  


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf