Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 06:27:02PM -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
> And IETF could spend its time staying relevant this way -- do the
> work between meetings, and spend the meetings to figure out new
> work that is done between meetings.

Or how about just shorten the Big Giant Meeting?  I think the IETF
meeting is too long, and not just because I think it's expensive and
inconvenient.  I actually don't believe that anyone can concentrate
that much for that long, and my interactions with other people leaving
by the end of Friday tends to confirm my opinion.  People are really
tired by the end, and I question therefore how much good we're doing
in having meetings that run so long.  I also think too many WG
meetings are opportunities for people with poor presentation skills to
talk too long.  Large numbers of WG meetings include way too much
status information that ought to be apparent to anyone who is
following the list with even a little attention, and that could be
summarised by the Chairs in mailing list postings just before
meetings.  We invented this intertube thingy, and now we're loathe to
use it for simple, non-controversial information distribution.
 
> If we really want to do work during the meetings we need 4-5 
> meetings a year instead of 3.  The meetings create deadlines, as is 
> obvious by the onslaught we are about to enjoy with Monday's upcoming -00
> cutoff.

Surely we could invent ways to create deadlines without having a
thousand people get onto planes and go somewhere far away.  For
instance, we could have 6 publication slots a year.  If your IETF LC
isn't done by date _n_, you don't get into that slot.  We schedule
backwards from there.  This is just an idea off the top of my head,
and not to be taken seriously; but I can't believe it's any worse than
"5 full meetings a year".  We can't even get the sponsors needed for 3
meetings a year, people complain endlessly about the travel costs (and
omigod! we have to take a _train_!  It's TOO HARD!  And it's not where
I've been before and the people there are all _different_ and stuff!).
This isn't to say you were really advocating 5 meetings a year, but
that argument isn't really a reductio proving we need more interims.
Maybe we need fewer meetings and more work/review.  So let's just
force those volunteers to get to work! :-/

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.