Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

All,

A wonderful IETF this time around. Good work for all those involved in
making it a painless experience.
Gather was fun and interesting - too bad there were not that many people
there.

There were nits with Meetecho (all of which have already been expressed by
others in this list).

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM 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”.
>

I really like this idea. It seems like there are four groups:

1. Those who have been actively participating in the document revisions and
have no real questions but looking for others comments and to support the
document.
2. Those who are not involved with document revisions (but are aware of
their focus) and don't read the active drafts posted. They come in
expecting to be updated accordingly and ask any questions ad-hoc.
3. Those who are totally new and have no idea what a given document is
about and have not read it.
4. Those who are new but read at least a subset of documents and have
questions or concerns they wish to raise.

I will admit to fall in either category 2 or 3 most of the time other than
in my own WG where I fall into category 1. I'm sure there are more
groupings but these are the most obvious ones.

I think gearing the slides towards; "here are open issues and I am
soliciting comments on and does anyone have anything else they wish to
discuss?" is a good approach. Sometimes a presenter needs more of a
structured and walkthrough like presentation to present new work. Seeing as
all slides (and presentations) are archived a simple search should make it
easy for newcomers to find them to get up to speed before meeting day.

I will also add that Bret's comments I think are a good extension to this
and having active interim meetings (where the format above is used) and F2F
that are highly geared toward driving a consensus on a blocked issue. I
also agree with Bret that one session (or even two) is sometimes just not
enough. I have seen this in some WGs where discussion is forced closed on a
topic, that seems good and is getting activity in the room, to proceed with
what feels like really stiff agendas. Other discussions then feel stifled
as people are holding back to avoid being sidelined by the agenda.

>
>
> > -----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
>

-- 
73's,
Adam T. Wiethuechter
AX Enterprize, LLC