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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 4. Apr 2023, at 21:34, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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?

We've always trusted the WG chairs to make that determination, and use the different available participation venues (mailing list, in-person and remote interims, in-person meetings, etc.) in ways that is most effective for their WG for their current work items. While some chairs are certainly better than others in doing this, I believe this decentralized approach has a lot of value and is generally working OK.

Involving the ADs in this process might seem attractive in terms of oversight and/or to establish a common approach - but it also further increases the AD workload (c.f. the current discussion on the that). There are severe downsides to that.

Thanks,
Lars