Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

This is my personal opinion, and it's one that states the kinds of
things I'd want to think about rather than something that reflects my
opinion.  I mostly don't have an opinion yet; and I think it's just as
well to have this sort of discussion in public, so that's why I'm
replying.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:31:06PM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
> What I am suggesting to the IAOC is that, over the coming 9 years (27 meetings)

One thing that worries me a little bit in discussing that kind of plan
is how far out we're talking about, and how much it assumes that the
IETF meeting system and pace of meetings will not change in that time.

The IETF is changing and is working in an environment which is itself
changing a lot.  We are seeing quite a lot more remote participation,
and there's little reason to suppose that will slow down.  The
standards environment is changing a lot, too.  Many standards are now
developed basically as online repositories of code and standard at the
same time.  The complaint that the IETF moves too slowly and too
bureaucratically is heard more often than ever.  We are having more
interims (most of them virtual).  And our population is changing: we
are having new people come to the IETF and, of course, some people are
retiring.  In 9 years, will we still be meeting three times a year?
Will the 1-1-1* approach still apply?  (Perhaps the vast majority of
IETF participants will be coming from India and China, for instance,
in which case North America might not be a good regular destination.)

Moreover, 9 years is a _really really_ long time past the term of
anyone appointed by nomcom.  Three years was already past the nomcom
horizon, but at least there is an argument that people on the IAOC are
likely to come to at least some meetings the year after their term
ends.  I confess I have no way of forecasting whether I'll still be
participating in the IETF in 9 years (given my track record on
predicting my own career, frankly, it's astonishing to me when I even
have a clue about next week).  My first IETF meeting (in person) was
10 years and one month ago, and if you'd asked me then whether I'd
still be participating after 10 years I couldn't have guessed.  

Finally, there's been a great deal of worry about the lack of
cross-area review that we get these days, but it doesn't seem to me
that the meetings obviously help with that except by accident.  It
could be that we will conclude that three giant meetings a year (as
opposed to, say, area meetings or something like that plus, say, one
all-IETF meeting a year) is a bad idea because of the practical
constraints.

The above are each topics where I have poor knowledge, and where that
knowledge would make a difference to how I'd respond to an idea like
this.  (They're probably not all the topics, but ones that I can think
of now.)  I just don't know what to think about this.  I'd be
interested to hear views, especially including those who are perhaps
less-frequent contributors to this list, people who've started
participating in the IETF in recent years (both at meetings and also
not at meetings or only infrequently at meetings), and those who've
been arguing that we need to do something to make the meetings less
important and return the important work to lists and other such ways
of working.

I solicit your advice (either on-list or off).

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]