----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Resnick" <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpe...@stpeter.im> Cc: <dcroc...@bbiw.net>; "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:56 PM > On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >> ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant > >> to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency > >> hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. > >> > > That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even > > have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really > > gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on > > the mailing list. > > > > It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I
Pete I find that strange, not something I have ever seen (at least judging by the minutes of WG meetings which I have not attended). I see many WG which only make progress just prior to the closing of I-D submission up to the point soon after submission reopens, but that is not the same thing as making progress by meeting. And I do know of two or so WG which make progress at a meeting; but they seem to me to be WG that are too small to be a WG in the first place, where the work is driven by less than half a dozen people who gain much from meeting but where the breadth of experience and knowledge is missing and where the output is then, for me, suspect. WG of a substantial size seem to me to gain little or nothing from meeting, as the minutes show. Tom Petch > think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that > happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other > participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask > for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work > that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings > (including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice > their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for > some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of > consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only > poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > >
