Re: [105attendees] Agenda Bashing was Re: Administrative Plenary Time Constraint: Must End by 21:00

"Paul Hoffman" <> Wed, 24 July 2019 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82B1120020; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QAaHPj0kGq9; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Opus1.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EFB8120019; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6OEK5nS052827 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:20:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc:, IAB <>, The IESG <>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:20:09 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [105attendees] Agenda Bashing was Re: Administrative Plenary Time Constraint: Must End by 21:00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of all 105 attendees for official communication <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:20:14 -0000

On 24 Jul 2019, at 10:11, Aaron Falk wrote:

> I’m conflicted about this.  Time used for what might be 
> speech-making from one person, could be a more nuanced point from 
> another.  We keep saying we need to use our f2f time more efficiently. 
>    Well, sometimes that means breadth and a lot of people providing 
> quick input and it also can mean depth and giving folks enough time to 
> say something clearly.  I think hard and fast rules like fixed time 
> limits will prevent the latter (from both ends of the room).

We fully agree on that. What we might not agree on is the value for the 
large number of listeners in the room spending time listening for 
whether a particular long-winded speaker is actually going into depth on 
something that has not already been said, either earlier in the mic line 
or in the extensive ietf@ list discussion that has already happened. 
Some of us prefer to optimize for that much larger set of listeners, 
particularly in light of the fact that the mailing list will certainly 
be a good way for new points brought up succinctly tonight to be 
discussed more fully.

Restricting speakers' time when there are a lot of contributors does not 
mean not hearing what they have to say; for many of us listeners, it in 
fact can mean exactly the opposite.

--Paul Hoffman