Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Bret Jordan <jordan2175@gmail.com> Mon, 03 August 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jordan2175@gmail.com>
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 D13433A0FF5 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 10:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4fwk5ar-mUyt for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 10:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C52423A0FF3 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 10:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id qc22so24738164ejb.4 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 10:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=guUQpX+efkDCG9HRNl/Q5GkuF66YMLn5Ng78SiPZJGM=; b=QxXw885Oqir2ecWB3NaQLxxUR5ElNtGK4eRHqfbQI+YFcM6F3uJFDA6Y48koyymzMd TpGNlAzhIh+/NZiUuhS9x7bB4Y4raLNBEvgqDhDBHj59+d0xvRYYv9/OHQ4K4dV9g83p BrT6uH6bnBhUgA2StlbciKqRphorSTC5EMzdb1F1H20vKyq728MyrzTSUWlKXmBS5CfU h6xQiJRE7+7gQrxQBH0hOlVdCcqD4oF8Rrt1F07QECVLTUvpi5vtsLInAuZh87ah7KeG xnwQEBe5JfiN2C1xOqdbywgDmAqPkktRAcdFha61iAR+K2Tk/apfS7y57pKoy00pwQcl NRDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=guUQpX+efkDCG9HRNl/Q5GkuF66YMLn5Ng78SiPZJGM=; b=iUZR+3yT/GXq4pS57oyRbmT4ukq3M7R6frDKKa1VP6pndU09OAPl+Lq7/pdLbaj3QR hoVFOPEdrBUrceqjdk/VUAVK3Dr+GV1tqrGtej2ZNVMTrlONvxLjPaxsgPMboGDKmcXj YMviz97/Rvfxc8JZS0NCrVSbH7iTXldHzdNOW6Af6FELKkuFp4H748odfbH2Ibnc+noo jTf8knmwIgkJg3dBLSvLOSoRLknxt89d8JYBCQ/qITBgoIKiyRvPkL4ydzwnVmDvR6FD 5OEBISJpQ0Nu/s1Qj1vPK7dVGAtJoAOorjjSbkh3zMdhCvvCb80de1wPM8a5KEH6iht+ FGRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wGW7hDGs72RPIcnlvZ3vbbIiI4CSnHEZGYmHS0nTKoJVi2hYx xxrXidvk4rjEs2HrJUw2Z5sW853OG5OtNa2gdJw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsiBY0mvX4XLxl4VBBOxiBJIAaFwfAXrDrLRpdzzcPbCPcEOJB22h0XvYbkzzBqSUouT12TJ4dTpIUo8NKRdw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cc4a:: with SMTP id mm10mr17074053ejb.451.1596476637185; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 10:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337767597051839FE069836C14D0@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Bret Jordan <jordan2175@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 11:43:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOxKQDwqdy1sTq5Oa-4qrnW=HvpUDrE=CxEMKPVOvRH1VPmsFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "108attendees@ietf.org" <108attendees@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da0c5d05abfcae72"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/Ckb8uoz1nMLjVD5NxXvTiEhwPqg>
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: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 17:44:01 -0000

IMHO, I think we should do things much differently.  We need to
remember that the structure of IETF meetings were set up a long time ago.

1) Working Groups should have monthly meetings over a video conferencing
solution. This is where day-2-day decisions are made, work is generally
done, and drafts are discussed. Slides should be prepared ahead of time and
people should review them and come with questions. We should not rehash the
slides on the call. We should open up each concept from the slides for
discussion, where each concept is timeboxed.  Outcomes are: 1) no general
consensus so we punt the concept to a future meeting, 2) consensus against,
so we don't do it, 3) consensus for it so we move forward.

2) We should still have Face2Face meetings.  But these meetings should be
reserved for topics that we can not get consensus on during monthly calls
or over email.  Face2Face meetings should be well organized by the chairs
that have experience dealing with conflicts and competing proposals. The
mic lines should be organized for people that are for a proposal and for
people that are against a proposal. We should have whiteboards where we
talk through ideas and work through complicated issues. Face 2 Face
meetings for working groups should have at least two sessions if not three.
But there needs to be breaks between them. This will allow individuals that
have divergent views time to discuss and try to come to mutually acceptable
agreement. But it is critical to have chairs that know how to identify the
areas where things are in agreement and the areas where things are not in
agreement and then balance and manage that conflict.

Standards work is hard, but we need to figure out a better and faster way
to work that is more eco-friendly and allows groups to be successful.

I also think that the barrier to entry for new ideas and work groups should
be a lot lower. How you proof the pudding is to make sure new work meets
certain milestones. If not, then the working group is closed.  For example,
you could say all new working groups are basically approved but you have to
have at least 15-20 people in each monthly meeting for at least 9 of the 12
months of the year. You need to produce at least 2 drafts per year.

I would love to find a way to get more people involved in the IETF to
balance out some of the echo chamber / myopic views that currently exist.
We need more divergent views and voices, not less.

Bret

Sent from my TI-99/4A
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050


On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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”.
>
>
>
> People could still post video presentations if they wished – but I agree
> that production skills vary widely and I am not optimistic that prerecorded
> presentations on average would be any better than live ones on average.
>
> What I want to address is the frustration many of us feel is when there is
> no time during the meeting for discussion. Without that, we might as well
> be sending email to the list.
>
>
>
> To give people more time to review the slides, set a deadline for posting
> the slides similar to that for new drafts – say one week before the actual
> meeting.
>
> (Admittedly many of us – myself included – might only look at the slides
> the morning of…but at least we would have the opportunity.)
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: 108attendees <108attendees-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Randy
>
> > Bush
>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2020 2:31 PM
>
> > To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
>
> > Cc: 108attendees@ietf.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
>
> >
>
> > > Recording video of even marginally useable quality is a huge
>
> > > undertaking for most people.
>
> >
>
> > fwiw, most academic/research conferences went this path when the plague
>
> > hit.  if a grad student can do it, you can too :)
>
> >
>
> > randy
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > 108attendees mailing list
>
> > 108attendees@ietf.org
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees
> --
> 108attendees mailing list
> 108attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees
>