Subject: Re: BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:25:49 -0500

Err...  since when are virtual meetings allowable on 10 days notice, 
and to occur within 10 days of a full IETF meeting?

Isn't this too little notice and too close to the actual IETF meeting 
to provide the notification necessary and an appropriate separation 
to get anything done prior to the actual IETF meeting?

IMO there needs to be a least 2 weeks notice for any virtual meeting, 
and they cannot occur within 2 weeks of the start or end of an IETF 
meeting (though I think I like the old 30 day rule for this latter aspect).

James

At 02:05 PM 10/16/2009, IESG Secretary wrote:
>As indicated at the Stockholm IETF's BMWG meeting, BMWG will
>be using PSTN conferencing (and probably webex) for the following
>interim meeting to advance some specific current work items and
>discuss new work proposals.
>
>UTC (GMT) Friday, October 30, 2009 at 13:30:00 to 16:00:00
>start times in
>Geneva (Switzerland) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:30:00 PM UTC+1 hour CET
>New York (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:30:00 AM UTC-4 hours EDT
>San Francisco (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7 hours PDT
>Note that the USA will still be observing Daylight Savings Time,
>while Europe and many other locations be on Standard Time.
>
>See the BMWG Archive for more information, specifically:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02078.html
>
>Per http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76, the cut-off
>for revised I-Ds is October 26.
>
>Agenda, Slides, (WebEx URL) and PSTN dial-in information will be
>published
>on BMWG's supplementary web page:
>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/
>_______________________________________________
>IETF-Announce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:00:58 -0500

fair - I was off 4 days, and sit corrected.

however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is awfully 
close, don't you think?

James

At 02:44 PM 10/16/2009, Dave Thaler wrote:
>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
>"Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least
>two weeks prior to the call or session, and the agenda must be
>published at least one week before call or session"
>
>The quoted text at bottom announces a meeting 2 weeks from today,
>so it seems to meet the two weeks notice requirement to me.
>
>-Dave
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > James M. Polk
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:26 PM
> > To: IESG Secretary
> > Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting
> >

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:10:32 -0400

> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is awfully  

FWIW, my personal opinion is that if WGs could complete most of what
they actually have to do in interims, prior to the Big Giant Meeting,
we might have some hope of beating back the steady expansion of the
IETF meetings into two weeks.  Especially in case the meetings are
held virtually, in which case the Internet weenies have to eat their
own Internet-virtual-environment dog food.  Which can't possibly be a
bad thing, can it?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:23:47 -0400

James,

The following IESG statement contains rules for interim meetings:

- http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html

I don't see anything in the rules constraining the amount of time
between the interim meeting and the actual IETF meeting. Is there some
other guideline of which I am not aware?

                                Ron

James M. Polk wrote:
> .

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:27:02 -0700

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:11 PM
> To: James M. Polk
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; IESG Secretary; [email-masked]; Dave Thaler

+1.

And IETF could spend its time staying relevant this way -- do the
work between meetings, and spend the meetings to figure out new
work that is done between meetings.

If we really want to do work during the meetings we need 4-5 
meetings a year instead of 3.  The meetings create deadlines, as is 
obvious by the onslaught we are about to enjoy with Monday's upcoming -00
cutoff.

-d

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:46:50 -0700

> Dan, Andrew,
> 
> While I don't agree with the above, partially because I think
> the IETF still benefits tremendously from the informal
> intra-area and inter-area drop-ins, cross-calibration, and
> cross-fertilization that come with meetings -- things that an
> isolated WG-specific interim will never have-- if we shifted to
> doing most of the work in "interims", it might be easy to cut
> the big "everyone gets together in the same place" meetings to
> twice a year or maybe even three in two years. 

I don't agree there is a cause and effect that if WG's get
work done between meetings it would reduce the big in-person
meetings.  Is there experience you can share where this 
occurred?

-d

> That would save
> a lot of money and travel wear-and-tear for participants and
> their organizations.  What it would do to the budget, at least
> absent astronomical registration fees, is another matter, but I
> hope we don't need to have "more attendance at more meetings"
> drive our decision-making.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:28:05 -0500

>other guideline of which I am not aware?

My understanding was similar to John's note (i.e., I didn't see the 
memo that the 30 window (that I've had to meet a couple of times over 
the years - so I am aware of it) got repealed).

I'm generally concerned about the idea of having a virtual meeting 
during the blackout period when someone can take what was said in the 
virtual meeting and apply that to any existing WG draft and have time 
to submit it for the general IETF meeting.

But again, I guess I missed the memo about the changes in policy 
towards interims and virtual interims.  Maybe it's shame on me for 
not catching this memo as it flew by me on some list.

James

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:20:37 -0400

> work that is done between meetings.

Or how about just shorten the Big Giant Meeting?  I think the IETF
meeting is too long, and not just because I think it's expensive and
inconvenient.  I actually don't believe that anyone can concentrate
that much for that long, and my interactions with other people leaving
by the end of Friday tends to confirm my opinion.  People are really
tired by the end, and I question therefore how much good we're doing
in having meetings that run so long.  I also think too many WG
meetings are opportunities for people with poor presentation skills to
talk too long.  Large numbers of WG meetings include way too much
status information that ought to be apparent to anyone who is
following the list with even a little attention, and that could be
summarised by the Chairs in mailing list postings just before
meetings.  We invented this intertube thingy, and now we're loathe to
use it for simple, non-controversial information distribution.
 
> obvious by the onslaught we are about to enjoy with Monday's upcoming -00

Surely we could invent ways to create deadlines without having a
thousand people get onto planes and go somewhere far away.  For
instance, we could have 6 publication slots a year.  If your IETF LC
isn't done by date _n_, you don't get into that slot.  We schedule
backwards from there.  This is just an idea off the top of my head,
and not to be taken seriously; but I can't believe it's any worse than
"5 full meetings a year".  We can't even get the sponsors needed for 3
meetings a year, people complain endlessly about the travel costs (and
omigod! we have to take a _train_!  It's TOO HARD!  And it's not where
I've been before and the people there are all _different_ and stuff!).
This isn't to say you were really advocating 5 meetings a year, but
that argument isn't really a reductio proving we need more interims.
Maybe we need fewer meetings and more work/review.  So let's just
force those volunteers to get to work! :-/

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:22:32 -0400

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:14:45AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> big...".   What I tried to say is that, if most of the work
> shifted to the interim meetings, then it would be possible for
> the community to reduce the number of large meetings somewhat
> without loss of productivity.  No cause and effect, just
> opportunity.

Exactly right.  As WG Chairs, we have to control the meeting agendas
such that the emphasis is "work gets done" and not "meeting time
happens".

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:03:37 +0100

Given travel constraints & guilt about flights, would be very
interesting if we could try a meeting virtually. 

Face to face interim meetings I don't think would help that much as:- 
[1] I may now have to go to several interim meetings 
[2] my boss tells me to choose between either going to the interim or
going to the main ietf meeting 

Btw the ietf meetings actually seem shorter now than when I first went
[~ 2000] when we finished about 10pm. Wouldn't want to go back to that
though.

Best wishes,
phil
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Dan Wing
Sent: 17 October 2009 02:27
To: 'Andrew Sullivan'; 'James M. Polk'
Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'
Subject: RE: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

+1.

If we really want to do work during the meetings we need 4-5 
meetings a year instead of 3.  The meetings create deadlines, as is 
obvious by the onslaught we are about to enjoy with Monday's upcoming
-00
cutoff.

-d

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:15:39 -0400

Folks,

This meeting was one of those exceptional events that John mentioned in
his last email. In Stockholm, the working group discovered that many of
its contributors simply could not attend IETF 76. They were constrained
by many different issues (travel budgets, health, other conflicts).
Since they could not pull off an effective meeting in Hiroshima, they
were left with two options:

- do nothing until IETF 77
- have an interim meeting

Although we don't want to make a practice of replacing regular meetings
with interims, in this case, the only alternative was even worse. So,
the WG agreed to an interim.

Since the WG is not going to meet in Hiroshima, I am not so worried
about the distance in time between the Interim and Hiroshima. So long as
the WG didn't violate any of the state policies of the IETF, I had no
reason to complain.

                                          Ron

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:20:52 -0500

Ron

For the record, I have no issue with virtual meetings. I was just 
commenting on the close proximity to the IETF meeting.

James

BTW - I also am not able to attend Hiroshima for some of the reasons 
you mention (nor is my fellow co-chair...).

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:10:57 -0400

--On Friday, October 16, 2009 15:00 -0500 "James M. Polk"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is
> awfully close, don't you think?

FWIW, we used to have a firm rule against interim meetings close
to IETF ones.   I have no idea if it got lost in history,
repealed, or is still taken seriously.  If the WG is meeting at
IETF, it leaves insufficient time for minutes and new drafts to
be available before the IETF meeting.  If it is used instead of
a meeting at IETF... well, we used to think that was a bad idea
because it prevented the cross-review and cross-fertilization
that are our justification for big, everyone-meets-in-the-same
place, IETF meetings.

Of course, there are always the possibility of exceptional
cases, which is why we pay the IESG the big bucks.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:10:37 -0400

--On Friday, October 16, 2009 18:27 -0700 Dan Wing
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew
>> Sullivan Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:11 PM
>> To: James M. Polk
>> Cc: Working Group Chairs; IESG Secretary; [email-masked]; Dave
>> Thaler Subject: Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting
>> 
>> FWIW, my personal opinion is that if WGs could complete most
>> of what they actually have to do in interims, prior to the
>> Big Giant Meeting, we might have some hope of beating back
>> the steady expansion of the IETF meetings into two weeks.
>> Especially in case the meetings are held virtually, in which
>> case the Internet weenies have to eat their own
>> Internet-virtual-environment dog food.  Which can't possibly
>> be a bad thing, can it?
> 
> +1.
> 
> And IETF could spend its time staying relevant this way -- do
> the work between meetings, and spend the meetings to figure
> out new work that is done between meetings.
> 
> meetings a year instead of 3.  The meetings create deadlines,
> as is  obvious by the onslaught we are about to enjoy with
> Monday's upcoming -00 cutoff.

Dan, Andrew,

twice a year or maybe even three in two years.  That would save

      john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:14:45 -0400

--On Friday, October 16, 2009 20:46 -0700 Dan Wing
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> isolated WG-specific interim will never have-- if we shifted
>> to doing most of the work in "interims", it might be easy to
>> cut the big "everyone gets together in the same place"
>> meetings to twice a year or maybe even three in two years. 
> 

One answer is that I'm a firm believer in Parkinson's Law -- in
this case, we make more meeting time and the number of meetings
we "need" to hold and their agendas increase to use it up.  On
that basis, I'm not convinced that any of interim meetings,
multiple meetings per WG at IETF, Friday sessions, are a good
idea.  On particularly bad and cynical days, I believe we might
be better off with an ISO-like rule in which WGs and projects
are given a specific amount of time to get a standard together
and out the door; a possibility of one extension if it can be
justified; and then shutdown and discontinuation of the project.

But you read what I said differently from what I intended.  You
got "if WG's get work done between meetings it would reduce the
big...".   What I tried to say is that, if most of the work
shifted to the interim meetings, then it would be possible for
the community to reduce the number of large meetings somewhat
without loss of productivity.  No cause and effect, just
opportunity.

Of course, even without interims, we do have some data about a
related set of work patterns.  We have WGs who get a lot of work
--most of  their work-- done on mailing lists and WGs who get
most of their work done either at meetings or immediately before
them.  My somewhat subjective observational impression is that
the former demand fewer meetings/hours at IETF than the latter.
It wouldn't be too hard to actually measure if we cared enough
(i.e., thought we could do something useful with the data).

     john