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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 09:20 +0300 Lars Eggert
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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...
> 
> 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. 

Per an earlier note, I see at least some of the push for more WG
session time almost the same way I see the push for more
interims: a move away from relatively inclusive discussions and
decision-making on mailing lists in favor of decision-making by
whomever can attend a real-time session followed by pro-forma
approval on mailing lists.   At least IMO, there is no question
that real time discussion can be key to sorting out matters of
principle or strategic issues that have not converged on those
mailing lists.  They are, at least IMO, a lousy way to do actual
document editing.  So that takes us back to variations on the
suggestion Eliot made earlier and a question to the IESG: I
understand "wanting" more session time but do you have a clear
sense --ideally one on which you can report to the community --
about rationale and need?  When those sessions occur, are they
about presentations, status reports on what the WG is doing, or
discussions of open issues?  Of the latter, what fraction of
them are issues that have been thoroughly discussed on mailing
lists but remain unresolved rather than, e.g., ones that have
been deferred to or saved for f2f discussions.  And, for those
WG's who have asked for and gotten more than a one-hour slot,
what is the evidence that the additional time was actually
marginally productive in issue-resolving or problem-solving?

Finally, if the reason why lots of time is needed is because WGs
have too many items in their queues (or too much need to
coordinate with other groups), are you prepared to review
whether they are trying to accomplish too much at the same time
to efficiently produce high-quality and well-vetted work?  When
a specification produced by a WG gets significant and
substantive comments during IETF LC

I may be wrong, but I am guessing that more focus, more
efficiency, and more effective WG management could eliminate the
need for very large blocks of in- person time for many WGs at
least most of the time.

> 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.

Noting Brian's comment about the importance of informal
meetings.. While I hate to even think about it, if one is
looking only from the "net zero" perspective, an annual,
carefully designed, two-week-long f2f IETF meeting would almost
certainly be better than three f2f meetings in widely spaced
locations. 

On the other hand, if we say "the main purpose of an f2f meeting
is those informal contacts" then fewer f2f meetings, with more
focus on getting people there (including optimizing locations to
minimize overall costs --financial and otherwise) might be good
but longer ones would inevitably increase on-the-ground and
away-from-day-job costs.

best,
   john