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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
> I'm happy to see Adrian pointing out that this is an update, not a de
> novo policy.
> I'm not so happy to see that the IESG didn't include this information
> (and a "what's changed" summary) in the announcement.
Yes, thanks to Adrian and you. I'll take to blame for not setting the 
context correctly.

Yes, this is a tentative replacement for 
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html (written in 2008)
The goals are multiple:
     - recognize that there are more virtual interim meetings these days
     - clarify the procedures, for face-to-face versus virtual
     - be more flexible for the virtual meetings

IMO, more virtual meetings is a condition for the IETF to move faster.

Regards, Benoit
>
> Attached is a wdiff (with some line formatting added by me).
>
> Important points:
>
> - Formatting: Face-to-face and virtual meetings each get their own
> bulleted list of requirements.
> - More positive noises about mailing lists in the introduction.
> - Acknowledgement that some WGs hold bi-weekly or even weekly interims
> - An expectation that virtual interims will become more commonplace over
> time
> - A statement that the rules in this statmement "must be obeyed"
> - New rules for approving extended sequences of virtual meetings
> - Virtual meetings get shorter timelines (4->1 week for announcement,
> 2->1 week for agenda)
> - Uploading to the datatracker of minutes get mentioned
>
> The biggest deal seems to me to be that virtual meetings in series
> (right up to weekly!!!!) are now a blessed IETF procedure.
>
> Personally, I feel that weekly meetings can be *very* effective - but
> they are also *very* exclusionary. The number of people in a working
> group who can tolerate another weekly phone call in the average working
> group is likely counted on one hand - perhaps two if the WG is intensely
> popular - and these will usually be the people who are already full time
> committed to the design that is being pursued.
>
> My impression is that we should call these meetings "editor meetings",
> "design team meetings" or something else - but expecting a *WG* to show
> up at weekly phonecalls is a Really Bad Idea, and we shouldn't encorage
> more WGs adopting such a practice.
>
> Harald
>
>