Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>]

Dear Brian;

On Jul 21, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2008-07-19 04:21, Ned Freed wrote:
> > > Marshall,
> > > > It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
> > > > here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
> >
> > > Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact  
> > > mistaken,
> > > but I never said that we have rules that *prevent*  
> > > teleconferencing.  To
> > > elaborate, my understanding is that the rules for teleconferencing  
> > > are
> > > governed by the rules for interim meetings, which require  
> > > something like
> > > one month's advance notice plus attendance requirements at the  
> > > previous
> > > IETF, and a minimum period of time between meetings.  I regret I  
> > > can't
> > > locate the citation right now.  I also think AD approval is  
> > > required.
> > > And the reason I think all of these things is that we came close to
> > > having an appeal on the matter in one of the groups in which I am  
> > > active.
> >
> > > What I would suggest is that f2f requirement be eliminated, that the
> > > notice periods be reduced to two weeks, and that AD approval not be
> > > required.
> >
> > +1
>
> I don't think f2f meetings have ever been compulsory, have they?
> There have certainly been WGs that have avoided them once the
> work was well started.
>
> I agree that 2 weeks notice is usually enough for any form of
> teleconference, but some people may find it hard to reschedule
> things, so more notice is always better. 4 weeks is an absolute
> minimum for a meeting requiring travel.

My personal feeling is that, if the IETF wants to routinely use  
videoconferencing or
telepresence to further its work, a substantial and continuing effort  
will be needed to
make it happen in a reliable, effective and robust fashion. Generally,  
with the IETF even
a conference bridge is planned late in the process; my experience with
teleconferencing and telepresence is that it needs to be planned in  
from the start and
may be expensive to set up and run, although there should be larger  
savings in the avoidance of the
time and expense required for travel.

I would be glad to participate in any "IETF telepresence" BOF, bar or  
otherwise.

Regards
Marshall




> I guess the AD approval for f2f interim meetings was put in place
> to allow for a check that the general open-access requirements
> are being met, and to ensure that the AD can actually attend
> the meeting personally. If that became a WG chair responsibility,
> there would need to be a clear way for people to object, which
> would end up as an appeal to the AD anyway.
>
> > I will also note that telling people they cannot meet to discuss  
> > things is
> > about as effective as telling water it cannot flow downhill. In  
> > practice
> > what
> > often happens is that some small and highly motivated subset meets  
> > and
> > discusses things privately, rules be damned.
>
> I think we all know that such small discussions are often the source  
> of
> breakthroughs. afaik that has never been forbidden, but by definition
> such a discussion cannot claim to define WG consensus.
>
>   Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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