Re: [admin-discuss] Next steps towards a net zero IETF

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:21 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 4. Apr 2023, at 01:14, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Or we could just start with having three f2f meetings per year, with more
> > slots for informal meetings...
>

IETF may will need to have a formula as when do we do three f2f or four f2f
per year, IMHO it depends on the technology/RFCs demands and the number of
f2f attendance and the accumulated travel distances, and on ietf_data
analysis per WG and per Area. Furthermore, we need to know if the WG became
a remote WG_meeting or WG_in_person per IETF meeting (i.e. if more than 10
persons are attended then it is not remote_WG_meeting).


> I just wanted to point out that we're seeing a different push in the IESG
> from WG chairs, many of which want more WG session time during IETF
> meetings. That isn't to say that they wouldn't also want more informal
> time, but there is a tussle here.


There are a lot of wasted time because it does not depend on WG
priorities/activities, the Chair or AD need to discuss priorities of time
with All participants per WG. In meetings we may see presentations with no
discussions per f2f meeting, so I think it is a wasted f2f time, also there
are times in plenary meeting with no discussions per long_presentation. So
we need shorter presentations for less priority/activities and
longer_enough presentation for more high priority/productive_discussions.
Furthermore, our f2f meetings help us (remote and person_attended) make
better wg_decisions.


>
> Additional tracks and/or longer days and/or full-length Fridays will
> likely be needed and the community should weigh those against their
> downsides for in-person and remote attendees.
>

yes agree, and that needs to be discussed on the list per WG and per Area,
IMHO, the ietf_Area discussion on that issue is not active per future f2f
meeting.

Best Wishes,
AB