> We discussed this before and came to the conclusion
> that the only fair method was for participants in the conference
> calls to pick up their share of the cost. Participants in the
> development of IETF standards are expected to pay their
> own way to attend WG meetings, the IETF Plenary, etc.
> and conference calls are just one of those expenses.
While I agree about the general principle of cost sharing, the number
of conference calls, and the number of face-to-face meetings that this
WG has (aside from IETF meetings) are indeed a subject of concern.
IETF has traditionally done the bulk of its work by electronic mail.
Granted, mailing lists aren't as effective as either face-to-face or
conference calls, but they're cheap and accessible at reasonable cost
by pretty much everyone.
The IPP WG is doing a number of things differently than the
traditional IETF way. But IETF current practices are neither sacred
nor carved in stone, and we should reconsider them from time to time.
So I'm currently thinking of the IPP WG's practices that vary from
IETF as "experimental". Rather than scrutinize each one and decide
whether it is consistent with IETF goals -- I'd prefer to see how well
they work and get feedback from participants.
To that end, I'm interested in feedback (via private mail!) from WG
participants -- regarding whether the frequent face-to-face meetings
and conference calls help the working group acheive its goals, and
whether they impose a significant barrier to open participation.
(I've put the APPS ADs' addresses in the reply-to field, since I
expect Harald will also be interested in such feedback.)
Keith Moore