Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Alexandre PETRESCU <> Tue, 04 August 2020 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4C33A0BC6 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.846
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.846 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gy8jzEAJJsLI for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DAA33A0BC0 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 074EMQ9G012371 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:22:26 +0200
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E0C38203B8E for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:22:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BFA201E9B for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:22:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 074EMQWF002184 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:22:26 +0200
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alexandre PETRESCU <>
Organization: CEA
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:22:25 +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: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms090903030402020607010007"
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 14:22:31 -0000

Le 04/08/2020 à 04:32, Keith Moore a écrit :
> On 8/3/20 10:17 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> 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'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.
> I think it makes more sense to say "given that meeting time is 
> precious even when people don't have to physically travel to the 
> meetings, what's the most effective way to use that time to further 
> the goals of the group?"
> I remember when IETF meetings didn't use PowerPoint and video 
> projectors, and instead used film transparencies that could be written 
> on in real time.   When PowerPoint was introduced, the meetings became 
> much less productive because far more time was dedicated to 
> presentation and correspondingly less for discussion.   With film 
> transparencies, speakers were more likely to lead discussions and 
> refer to a slide only when necessary for illustration, and less likely 
> to simply read from their slides.   Powerpoint made it too easy to 
> just type text to be displayed on the screen while that text was read 
> or summarized by the speaker.
> (the presentations are, however, useful, especially at letting a 
> participant quickly catch-up before, during, or after a meeting.)
> The other things that I recall making meetings less productive were 
> (in no particular order):
> - widespread adoption of IP-over-radio (first proprietary, later WiFi) 
> with the result that meeting rooms then had Internet access, which 
> meant that many people who were physically present in a meeting room 
> were not paying attention and thus distracting from the discussion in 
> some ways
> Fully-remote meetings seem present less of the distraction problem, 
> because the people who aren't paying attention are not as obvious as 
> they are in an in-person meeting.
> - Introduction of the microphone queue
I would like to learn when was the microphone queue introduced at IETF?

I did see an early microphone queue in a video in the Russian 
parliament, year circa 1990.

I do not see microphone linear queues in many other current (eh!, 
recent) f2f meetings that I attend(ed).  I see, for example, two 
hostesses with microphones circulating in the amphitheatre and giving 
the mic to the people who raise hands to make questions.


> which again drastically reduced the time available for discussion due 
> to the overhead of "media access" (i.e. managing the microphone queue)
> The microphone queue was introduced to facilitate better remote 
> participation especially to allow time for remote speakers to get 
> access to the floor.   In a fully-remote environment, maybe we don't 
> need that queue any more, at least most of the time.