Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 04 August 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F205B3A1108 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:26:18 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4G-o6H3MRe8 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E8063A10F7 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y11so16827212qvl.4 for <>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 14:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Aa4/4AuOWP8fTqFmkFFpRqQnz3+2WUso4TgyxXwaiS8=; b=U4H8SPa83EVce2hTRM6NDAJVAXGOPKh7gwZPMdb/ozZyiBXTHzQX6qJzuIJtDHJZ1c GJlLu5JLO8tPXnpNGriw1w75sbTv70ljHf0Ww7sMgM7SFJGEGKiKIFuhP7QgBkYXQVWl j/TRgyn1SpNMT+KFD+pV2uWmD0M7E5/xvi3kk7kxOPbdPqE6f2Tro5d48AIYqoAtX6a1 WpxWyVKSA13C9lc+oSpBuqeZBbzknB5u+/ApBHDbSjffro6KtF4ihdu19TRUNP2igH/9 9JHXGDIIAExLP9rE5zgJu7VHl8bWebgqXDfRWuyy9r6raIzSfomSj4qhbnD0RkfOSetq xI3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Aa4/4AuOWP8fTqFmkFFpRqQnz3+2WUso4TgyxXwaiS8=; b=BEkGnrLdlHHGTGrJI6aywBIb9lIeSZkC0dMlzS0LusR5qJxTR8KaKlww2QhBWC44vO zAnAJXta3+q/O74eYXqDkHf65otxgyOAbMWscT5NZSmHaogM8hUspi1GIkCYyKyICjFO 9hi/MGTEYyres1zLyj1Z2jCb8N23TGLeKWx+iB/8xhEnAPiw6ceGoBD6n/uV4ASelbxy qKcfEq/7+4uLz44pjsQ7WUnNoO7nt7bFNRoMMP5uqh1Q52FxI00iXSmJxLWU74+b7roZ dqxgYAQetkDmO/U3MisMbkTohNIjD0iDCkZ8Jxwe9cz/lV4j9rddr/cG4F457/TpyKb+ WUbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531J/Wbxg0vTp/9GubIf5gJRfNmsTy5p8/0WjtNU8iYH52yhPAtK EURHQwXQQuxeLkGet4V8R5I9+al/k1jxpQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2VN+W07KFTCR2bj6oxy8fcpQaBzOnNjmN9bjY5mfLs1TE/Pkhvl/fow4pHniXQk3mtUbLdA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b5d8:: with SMTP id o24mr377601qvf.214.1596576375979; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:bc4f:dd7f:d316:5243? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:bc4f:dd7f:d316:5243]) by with ESMTPSA id p123sm21656500qkd.26.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2020 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EE23F6B4-9C32-469A-B376-FB43C7A61FBE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:26:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <LO2P123MB21738E9CA388ED45F25072B9E64A0@LO2P123MB2173.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 21:26:19 -0000

On Aug 4, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:
>> I consider this a serious problem.  The point of getting together in realtime to have verbal discussions is that synergy happens when we do this. The best mic-line discussions are the ones where ideas are going back and forth between people quickly, not the mic lines where everybody gets to have their say, linearly. That’s just not how human beings best communicate.
> Communication is a scalability issue.
> The types of conversations that are good back and forth require a small enough set of people to have that naturally occur with people that play nice together.

Yes, and this set of people is invariably no smaller than the group of people who get up to speak at the mic, even in the busiest wg sessions. My meditation classes work well with 30 attendees; I’ve never seen that many people in line during a working group session.

> Scaling that a small level with a moderator, as you know, means the moderator is actively building sub groups for discussion.

In this case, I think the author can do the sales job; the moderator just has to pay attention to the people who show up for the discussion.

> Once you've gotten over a certain size, you simply can't do that.  If you're in person, and you've got people that place nice while waiting in the mic line, people will bounce the mic amongst themselves.  But that's often at the cost of a narrow time window for verbal discussion to hit all of the people in the line and it can become unfair.

I would argue that if you have reached that size, you need to subdivide, as you suggest. But I’ve never seen the IETF get into this situation.

> IMO, you have to set your discussion style based on the scale of the conversation.  If you want serious back and forth, the timeslot in question should be mostly verbal and only a little slideware.  That's a chair problem.  The chair usually asks "how long do you need to present".  What is intended is "present... and take reasonable discussion?”

Yes. If this problem is interesting to you, I heartily recommend switching over to SHMOO. IMHO you are pointing in exactly the right direction.