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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> 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 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.

				Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf