Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work

Benoit Claise <> Thu, 26 February 2015 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495351A8860 for <>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:08:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TV96N0oV-jWn for <>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D07F1A9077 for <>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:08:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1638; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1424956086; x=1426165686; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ujS08q+O5InsOqtQl0WhFCaphczkCZYWE45nvB7qZEI=; b=Nl0zgyUsMEKFBcqtiFOgkZq41DCgHHikdFBqZQuwPLKstP0SEY2uOqL+ I7AMs7XYWrhwMbe4neA46D8ID2dQ10MJQuDnBJCJ/iXm0uwcNE3p2OUvB lwhcO7d/uKyZi6Xj7DZsDXys2M3fWmnb/WpjrGgh7sFMqTU7mGnK0xOdX Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,652,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="361287080"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2015 13:08:04 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1QD83pb025172; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:08:04 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:08:03 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <007301d04927$64890d40$> <> <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>,, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:08:08 -0000

On 26/02/2015 13:09, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Benoit Claise <> 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,, see in 
particular the latest status on all open points: 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.