Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 26/02/2015 13:09, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> People are having interim meetings because a one or two day meeting on one topic is a lot more productive than an IETF WG session.
>> Or because weekly meetings are more efficient.
> Well, they certainly get more done.   I think 6tisch does bi-weekly meetings because it allows them to keep momentum and make continuous forward progress between IETFs.   I think this is a really good thing, although I agree with the observation that such meetings make things harder for people who are not able to be full-time contributors.
>
> I think there is a real tension between a high clock rate enabling a good rate of progress and a too-high clock rate excluding participants.
I think it depends on well the status is documented (to come back to 
Tom's initial point).
For NETMOD, https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/, see in 
particular the latest status on all open points: 
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html. Kudos to 
Jürgen Schönwälder for maintaining this.
That being said, (bi-)weekly meetings are more suitable with a well 
documented issue list.

Regards, Benoit

>    I don't think there's an easy answer to this: I think that participants who are less able to attend than they would like need to have conversations with their working group chairs and/or ADs to see if the clock rate can be slowed somewhat without damaging the effectiveness of the working group.   I don't think there will ever be one answer to this that applies to all working groups.
>
>