Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 04 August 2020 12:00 UTC
Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA9B3A0A3F for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 05:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07P7TvHV9dPB for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 04:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903AB3A09DA for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 04:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C843960EF0; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:59:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <8DEC8E1B-CA6F-4F18-BA4B-777EA401EDDC@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA2912A9-29E9-49BE-93C4-A202B3E50B6E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 07:59:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <78c2bda7-ccf5-44f0-9520-f012d6949180@dogfood.fastmail.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, 108attendees@ietf.org
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
References: <DF9553CF-3B73-43C3-9BCF-5160A1949EC7@gmail.com> <3b9cc8e5-a9f2-cc44-8fc5-6b7649e43343@cs.tcd.ie> <392F9FEA-BA4A-4E57-B80D-D5B288B9887A@jisc.ac.uk> <f86a44a9-1f0e-9619-1a01-d2f9c98a756a@huitema.net> <20200802025924.GH1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3C71AFFA-E6D5-446C-B20A-C35B1EB8FFDF@nostrum.com> <m2eeoog2fr.wl-randy@psg.com> <BY5PR11MB4337767597051839FE069836C14D0@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <78c2bda7-ccf5-44f0-9520-f012d6949180@dogfood.fastmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/96cJH8-hDIGgI_RW7_ZBc_N_rqk>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
X-BeenThere: 108attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <108attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/108attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 12:00:00 -0000
> On Aug 3, 2020, at 10:17 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 03:27, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >> FWIW, perhaps we should rethink the traditional meeting agenda. >> >> >> >> Today pretty much everyone does: >> >> >> >> Present the slides I published 24 hours before the meeting >> In the time left for my slot (little to none because agendas are usually full) entertain questions/discussion >> >> >> Instead, don’t present slides at all (still prepare/publish them – and have them available if needed for reference). Each “presenter” gets 10-15 minutes to simply take questions/have discussion – the interactive things that have added value when done “face-to-face”. >> >> This would use meeting time to do what cannot be done as easily “on the list”. >> > > There's an assumption in here that the presenting of the slides doesn't have any benefit, which I don't believe is true. > > As the presenter talks through the slides they are aligning the thoughts of everybody in the room (including themselves) and hence when we get to the conversation, everybody has the cache state loaded into their brain and the conversation can be productive. I don't think that "read the slides in advance and come with questions" will give the same alignment. I was trying to figure out why I thought this wouldn't work well, and I think you identified the most important aspect (cache loading and aligning thoughts). A couple addition things that presenting the slides during the meeting accomplishes, I think, 1) It allows for pulling in some experts (and their viewpoints) who might make themselves available fully during meeting slots, but aren't really so involved in the WG that they read every draft or would watch videos of the slide presentations beforehand. 2) For work that the WG ultimately will reject, it gives the authors the feeling that they were fully heard prior to that rejection. I know that this should be able to be done strictly on the list; however, human nature what it is, it sometimes helps when people actually see that other people listened to them. This might still work if there was lively back and forth during a Q&A session, but I suspect for this type of work many people wouldn't watch the premade videos b/c they suspected it wouldn't move forward, and so there'd be much less participation during the Q&A part. In LSR we've certainly had meetings where we didn't have enough time, but that was primarily after we merged IS-IS and OSPF and hadn't figured things out. Lately things have been OK I think, up until IETF 108. For IETF 108 we didn't have enough time to run things the way we normally do -- 100m was definitely not enough time for us. For the next virtual, if nothing changes with the format (single session 100m max), we will be have to more limit who gets agenda slots, perhaps with some "if there's time" slots tacked on the end in case discussion times are not fully used on earlier presentations. Thanks, Chris. > I'm not saying "there's not better way", but it's worth considering the positives of the existing patterns and seeing how we can preserve them. > > Bron > > > -- > Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd > brong@fastmailteam.com <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com> > > > -- > 108attendees mailing list > 108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees>
- [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Bob Hinden
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Lixia Zhang
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Randy Bush
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Black, David
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Tony Li
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Daniel Migault
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Melchior Aelmans
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Tim Chown
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Christian Huitema
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Bob Hinden
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Melinda Shore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Andre Bondi
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ben Campbell
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Tim Chown
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Melinda Shore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Praneet Kaur
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Nabil Benamar
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 David R. Oran
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Susan Hares
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Linda Dunbar
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Randy Bush
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Randy Bush
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 John Levine
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Bret Jordan
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Wiethuechter, Adam
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Randy Bush
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Black, David
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Bron Gondwana
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Benoit Claise
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- [108attendees] IETF 108 is unique ! K Mohan Raidu
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Christian Hopps
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Christian Hopps
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 John Scudder
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Christian Hopps
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Mike Bishop
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 John Scudder
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 John Scudder
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 tom.2.hill
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Salz, Rich
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Salz, Rich
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Keith Moore
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Ted Lemon
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108 Toerless Eckert
- [108attendees] Please Fix your MUA: Re: IETF 108 … Mark Andrews
- Re: [108attendees] Please Fix your MUA: Re: IETF … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [108attendees] Please Fix your MUA: Re: IETF … K Mohan Raidu
- [108attendees] Agenda aware meetecho - Re: Succes… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [108attendees] Please Fix your MUA: Re: IETF … Ted Lemon