Re: [Manycouches] [admin-discuss] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, April 10, 2021 08:21 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have fairly violent feelings about purchasing carbon credits
> as virtue signalling, but rather than go there, let me ask
> whether discussing a strategic decision to reduce the
> (post-pandemic) number of meetings per year is within this
> WG's charter.

Skipping the carbon credit question for now, I've been having
much the same reaction, especially as we watch the number of
interim meetings continue to grow.  So, let me pose a slightly
different question:

Assume that starting with IETF 11X (X >= 1) we decide it is
post-pandemic and go back to a "normal" meeting schedule.
Should the IESG and the broader community then return to pushing
back on many between-IETF-meeting interims and encourage a
return to mailing lists, those IETF meetings, and using interims
_very_ sparingly?   Or, if many interims are now part of how we
do business that will not change post-pandemic, exactly what do
we think the full IETF meetings accomplish and can that be
accomplished (and participation broadened) by having fewer of
them.  If the answer is to reconsider how many IETF meetings we
need a year, does that optimally mean just fewer all-IETF
meetings or a permanent mix of nominally in-person and
all-remote meetings.  

If discussing that is not within the charter of this WG, where
is the appropriate place?

    john