So, I read this as saying no change of principle here,
which would mean out of scope for PESCI.
Brian
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, oktober 21, 2005 10:42:40 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott W Brim wrote:
How can we have the focus of the interims and
still have the cross-fertilization?
Easy. Do both. Its silly to think that 3 x 2 hrs = 6 hrs
of face time per year will advance any major piece of
technology. In addition, people will need to have
design teams, conference calls, interim meetings,
private meetings, etc. And obviously work on their
drafts and reviews on their own.
And work on the mailing list, of course.....
In some ways, I see face-to-face meetings as accelerating the work of
the mailing list more than replacing the at-IETF meetings.
Having said that, I don't think the focus of the main
IETF meeting should be just "reporting to a broader
audience" as Geoff put it. I hate status report meetings
packed with 10 minute slots of "we updated the draft
and here are the issues please continue the discussion
on the list". Its true that we do get a broader audience,
both within and outside the WG in the IETF main meetings.
However, the meeting should still focus on discussion
of relevant technical topics, engaging not just
the regular key contributors but also others in this
discussion.
Concur. This is very much a chair orientation issue, I think; if the
chair insists on running the session as a 5-min-per-draft reporting
session, that's how it will be. The chair has the power to decide this -
and the chair SHOULD know what the critical issues for the WG are at any
given time.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
|
Try Searching:
servers, voip, java, networking, microsoft ...
|
|
|
| 
