MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca>
 <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca>
 <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com>
 <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com>
 <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com>
 <CAKHUCzyJ62hVyJVVLuL5-nXx_i5VO2cW3LA6R1sdZbDHxoY_Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <43ADF7ED-6A42-4097-8FFA-5DA0FC21D07A@vigilsec.com>
 <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.com>
 <007301d04927$64890d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
 <54EDA697.5070107@cisco.com>
 <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:50:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgzXg+QM29ygS0Bv+HOo2Gd-hPByXYz2aVu-V4b=Jak+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3447e98d0fc050fec7083
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uH9g8o4MKevsMX-kp2ZOqazvTsI>
Cc: netmod-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

--001a11c3447e98d0fc050fec7083
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Is there really a demand for interim meetings that cannot be supported in
IETF regular meetings? We meet 3 times a year, why isn't that enough? I
don't know of any W3C working group meeting more than three times a year.

Rather than trying to pile requirements onto interim meetings, can we work
out a way to accommodate these needs in regular meetings?


I would like to suggest we go a stage further and change the way the IETF
meetings work.

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. For certain types
of work and at certain stages, a concentrated meeting is the only
productive approach.

W3C has always taken this approach, they have one annual meeting and a
series of interims. The annual meetings are structured like an academic
conference with a plenary track and a series of breakout tracks on one
topic.


Now we can't and should not change every IETF meeting structure because a
lot of IETF work is not of the type that benefits from this mode of work
and those that do do not necessarily benefit all the time.

But we could arrange one IETF on the W3C format as an experiment.

There are pros and cos to both ways of working. I don't see that we have to
limit ourselves just to one approach.


Early in a WG lifecycle I just want to spend two days doing nothing apart
from working through the issues list and kill off all the bike shed issues.
Later on when getting close to completion you might want to have another
bootcamp to close off all the open issues. In between you probably want
more of an update.

--001a11c3447e98d0fc050fec7083
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Is there really a demand for in=
terim meetings that cannot be supported in IETF regular meetings? We meet 3=
 times a year, why isn&#39;t that enough? I don&#39;t know of any W3C worki=
ng group meeting more than three times a year.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Rather than trying to pile req=
uirements onto interim meetings, can we work out a way to accommodate these=
 needs in regular meetings?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I would like to =
suggest we go a stage further and change the way the IETF meetings work.</d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">People a=
re having interim meetings because a one or two day meeting on one topic is=
 a lot more productive than an IETF WG session. For certain types of work a=
nd at certain stages, a concentrated meeting is the only productive approac=
h.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">W3C=
 has always taken this approach, they have one annual meeting and a series =
of interims. The annual meetings are structured like an academic conference=
 with a plenary track and a series of breakout tracks on one topic.</div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra">Now we can&#39;t and should not change every IETF m=
eeting structure because a lot of IETF work is not of the type that benefit=
s from this mode of work and those that do do not necessarily benefit all t=
he time.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a">But we could arrange one IETF on the W3C format as an experiment.=C2=A0<=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">There =
are pros and cos to both ways of working. I don&#39;t see that we have to l=
imit ourselves just to one approach.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Early i=
n a WG lifecycle I just want to spend two days doing nothing apart from wor=
king through the issues list and kill off all the bike shed issues. Later o=
n when getting close to completion you might want to have another bootcamp =
to close off all the open issues. In between you probably want more of an u=
pdate.</div></div>

--001a11c3447e98d0fc050fec7083--