IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF561A900A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:26:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dQxqfS3Q-0Pt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C34F1A9031 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5121079E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:26:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4P4JE7at7FOk for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:26:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-73-142-157-135.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.142.157.135]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2E0310669 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:26:41 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:26:39 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings
Message-ID: <20151216222638.GK693@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20151210164031.22024.98672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DD3E1F4-C057-4164-A8B0-445DB66D5F14@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DD3E1F4-C057-4164-A8B0-445DB66D5F14@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DENsAc6UvN-1_Cy-IfPTlSBEQ9M>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:26:44 -0000

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:05:43PM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
> Am I missing something? What "significant benefits" have been observed by correlating interim meetings of working groups that would not be having a combined meeting?

There was an interim meeting in which I participated (and I think you
did too) in Montreal a few years ago.  It was about v4/v6
interoperability challenges, and it spanned several WGs.  On the other
hand, it was a about a particular topic.

I'm also able to think of but one example that happened several years
ago.  That, too, may be data.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email