Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr> Tue, 04 August 2020 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>
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 120F93A0BC0 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.835
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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
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 wn41Wki2hoVs for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 489DB3A0917 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 074EHYIF010943 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:17:34 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 63F06203B79 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:17:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D64203C05 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:17:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 074EHYU6032215 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:17:34 +0200
To: 108attendees@ietf.org
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> <CAOxKQDwqdy1sTq5Oa-4qrnW=HvpUDrE=CxEMKPVOvRH1VPmsFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>
Organization: CEA
Message-ID: <d9ac9c3f-e585-e5e5-409d-eac90c41c6d0@cea.fr>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:17:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOxKQDwqdy1sTq5Oa-4qrnW=HvpUDrE=CxEMKPVOvRH1VPmsFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms040403020609040106010408"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/LIXWOeTlorMQ6EA3mReTRuhk1l4>
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 14:17:39 -0000

I reply because you signed TI-99, and I suspect it is a joke.  I used 
one in year 1988 and probably these computers dont exist anymore.

Le 03/08/2020 à 19:43, Bret Jordan a écrit :
> 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.

Joke aside, I dont think f2f meetings for IETF will happen before year 
2022.  Even then, it might be that only a few people will travel.

I think the work on organizing meetings would need to rather concentrate 
on how to best make online meetings.  I'd even say it is urgent, because 
as more time goes by, more and more trust and other advantages of IETF 
protocols risk of getting lost.  Strange things might happen.

Alex


> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:108attendees-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Randy
>
>     > Bush
>
>     > Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2020 2:31 PM
>
>     > To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com <mailto:ben@nostrum.com>>
>
>     > Cc: 108attendees@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees
>
>     -- 
>     108attendees mailing list
>     108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees
>
>