Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I would encourage choices which lead to shorter daycount. Whilst I
enjoy the hackathon, and the mentor sessions, and the training and
co-located meetings, I think in time-terms they are not helping and
should be constrained, or curtailed, or focussed. If you demand a does
not clash with b does not clash with c does not clash with d enough,
the only path out is to lengthen time. I think the people who do
hackathon, mentoring and ISOC fellows and policy *maybe* have to morph
in substantive ways to 'specialists' in this role, and basically not
get to define every WG as a 'must not clash'

I think (I have thought for some time) that several highly functional
areas of work like MIB engineering should move out of the week. I
don't mean to objectify the MIB WG people, I just think that this and
a number of other things could probably run as virtuals or
asynchronously to the IETF most of the time.

I seriously wonder about the spawning of *6* named groups. And,
related *dns* groups. It feels like 'divide and conquer' has simply
become an expansion of 'a must not clash with b must not clash with c'
problem. Maybe, we need ->Less<- WG not more?

I would encourage choices which accept we maybe need more steerage how
to "do it" in WG time. I am pretty sure I am a net contributor of
meeting delay, I can recognize the pathologies: Much less discussion
on things in drafts which need f2f time to converge, Much more
argument and discussion of what really interests us, which may not
usefully promote drafts -> documents closure.

Finally, and I say this knowing it points back to me, I think the
time-wasters should be encouraged to shut up and sit down.