Re: actions related to improving IETF meeting selections

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Mon, 13 June 2016 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CBB12D14D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MzzQBT2fAA8T for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135BC12D127 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id y124so40935642pfy.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dz/M+pwV92avSxvInG+lvVA7sX4SLwgKPerHEpwvUIs=; b=ftzV6zVDrKVLGQ6JgW8WQN38ofbGTqT6nG438zDKY9kTQCYv3ZUDTa9dq1rAnnA3Qk JydQu/BMCu7auQQkx91OXTS9+DJ0NZgIG5DpTBQAkqZi5+5AoJo+j1lSwEFFbvMJVqgY y4o9V6hYXuor0aWcU8N6Ev9sCTdqxpsL8CJmSj1vlDRJfaWZ0GFD+1rmQ6GKnlOXdZJi Pgwaxzaudc43FQlg1MQi9kWOnWPUoUxZ3lghMlz2xdROZzxgf0zGxeSR+C4UKjP+ryXE qpx4T2mqoYQtXiTSt8mxh6odj8yf0ojHERmoejrSmGBEyLocON1I1CIw+61qOpXQJHwi 7Mpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dz/M+pwV92avSxvInG+lvVA7sX4SLwgKPerHEpwvUIs=; b=MxPIuYG/0MrpjoicXPw6sORBfacl6xT7xnQ+XVn5jF8adhz0GgLcoqbRIXnmHvWkPb H5JL7m5wH9c2ohIUAd6B3Pk6CyP0mIMOs1QQH2KGi24dgh1DKELV9+CKSMwbsUfjhjhk IWf4lNat9BiqHHTcyKmpP3Th57gMxyer25Ieql8jsk0dL+cbE1FO99WmPC4sGUl4MRn9 SfE+h/96qcq5VgwC0nR6R0bqcMqkaKXSpPUnxg/qsKYi3b8/aBUQzoBsTfjITgQ6QXie RtjOnSXws2mDYYIuyCHS5VbgSqtMZZsM+NoCqSc4mDcppq5y19oNeWlcncfP5ycHJhkX drog==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJTRYl9NO+XxearS53UgHigd8qRwIdG9ZC8vEqlzL+DlfVObSjvM/y/8M6xyxUUZw==
X-Received: by 10.98.19.77 with SMTP id b74mr18316670pfj.145.1465783626529; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (63-140-80-61-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.80.61]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id xn3sm32862516pab.32.2016.06.12.19.07.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: actions related to improving IETF meeting selections
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com" <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <0DAA04D6-03FE-444D-ABF9-4A1CF2F7DFC9@ietf.org> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CA81040@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <557685565.1303569.1465745474144.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAPt1N1nqg9nbkgUGq2GSe7_Pu36aFx8WvX6KopZ0N9Ot9n-ceQ@mail.gmail.com> <312eb527-e0f0-d26f-b653-bcd0a24d8915@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=Sg6Usxo61McuJnH4v8jPOxy85EjLyqxYtPdwuJ6Kdgw@mail.gmail.com> <909008962.1455653.1465760599679.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CA81518@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ce1c294f-bdc4-d1c9-691f-43a68606be3d@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:06:58 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CA81518@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uYdxVR8i20bvTZl1uYsanmpf6-0>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:07:08 -0000

On 6/12/16 5:42 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> I
> personally believe it is feasible because the current three meetings per
> year is actually slowing down many WGs’ pace.

If so, it's because people are choosing not to progress
work between meetings, where "people" include both chairs
and editors.  By contrast, W3C is able to progress work
rather quickly (er, for the most part) and meets only
once/year.  However, they make heavy use of teleconferences,
collaboration tools, and mailing lists.

 > If you asked the WG chairs the question of how many f2f
> meetings per year are ideal for their WGs, in my guess, over 1/4 WGs
> would like to meet more than three times.

I've chaired a bunch of working groups over the years and never
felt that way, myself.  In a working group I chair currently
our editors rarely show up at face to face meetings and while
we're a lot slower than we'd like to be I'd say that has more
to do with problems that would not be resolved by meeting more
frequently or by having editors at meetings.

It is a little vexing that in many cases we're being asked
to accommodate the needs of people who haven't actively
contributed in the past and who don't show an interest in
actively contributing in the future.

I chaired an ETSI working group (TIPHON Security) a bunch
of years ago and don't think that their working style (nor that
of the ITU-T, or IEEE, or ... ) maps particularly well onto the
IETF, and consequently that it would be inappropriate to force
it.  Also note that ETSI and 3GPP (and W3C) and so on have
designated experts on salary to move work along, and it may
be worth considering the extent to which they're able to move
work forward by paying someone else to do it.

The question of the relevance of IETF standards is inseparable from
the question of their implementation and deployment, I think, and
the economic model underlying our work is quite different from that
motivating the work of the big, traditional telecomm standards
bodies.

Melinda