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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

FWIW - IEEE 802.1 meets f2f 6 times a year (3 plenary, 3 interim meetings), and each meeting is 4 days long. Yet, lately, they are using more and more conference calls with variable periodicity (some task forces meet weekly, other once a month). From an efficiency point of view their time scales are similar or last more than IETF chartered items, with better predictability  i.e. they establish deadlines at the start of the project which can be 2-3 years ahead and hit them more often than IETF WGs do. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand

...


> 
> my experience and experiences I've been told about varies a lot:
> 
> - W3C has one physical meeting a year + many interims. I'm not sure what to
> say about their speed - variable? - but it seems on the same order of
> magnitude as IETF.
> 
> - ECMA is apparently addicted to long weekly phone conferences, and has a
> reputation for both being massively exclusive ("only standards-goers can
> stand those calls") and being slower than IETF/W3C
> 
> - MPEG has 3-4 physical meetings a year, interims are very rare, and work
> between meetings in most parts seems to not involve either email,
> teleconferences or face-to-face meetings (everyone seems to be working on
> their own). It's probably slower than IETF/W3C.
> 
> I wouldn't say that more interims necessarily makes things faster.
> Having the *right* interims and the right *kind* of interims probably will.
> 
> So what do we want to encourage?

...