Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Terry Manderson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I accept that the drivers/authors of the BGPSEC work along with chairs and
> ADs want to maintain momentum - but given the importance of this topic and
> the many many layers it crosses (in some cases without meaning to), both
> breadth and depth of participation to produce the best effort (including
> palatability) result is needed over trying to meet WG milestones. I expect
> that can only be satisfied with ML participation and IETF attendance.
>
> So I also think adding interim meetings is bad.

significant progress has been made on the topics here because of
frequent (monthly about) face-to-face meetings, focused meetings even.
Would making the f2f meetings have virtual capabilities be acceptable?
(webex or the like, or maybe meeting rooms at diverse locations with
that fancy cisco meeting-room thing? or other of the same ilk?)

Are there enough central locations to where the folks who want to
participate to make more network connected office conversations
workable? (sunnyvale/pao/etc + washington + london + ???)

-chris