Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr> Tue, 04 August 2020 14:29 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 B269D3A0BF2 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.845
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.845 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, 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 dDyPjUCvbKUU for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 580F73A0BE9 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 074EStNm021148 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:28:55 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 26B64203C97 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:28:55 +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 1706E203C4D for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:28:55 +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 074ESssT004131 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:28:55 +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> <78c2bda7-ccf5-44f0-9520-f012d6949180@dogfood.fastmail.com> <8DEC8E1B-CA6F-4F18-BA4B-777EA401EDDC@chopps.org> <661693A8-DC49-4EF8-8FB4-66C760B6E971@juniper.net> <DC3243F3-6911-462E-B064-ED4AA6FCF919@ericsson.com> <814108A0-084C-4241-BEB8-68245E1A8B28@chopps.org>
From: Alexandre PETRESCU <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>
Organization: CEA
Message-ID: <90ebb3ff-fa58-7925-3b26-2e0bf9b194e8@cea.fr>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:28:54 +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: <814108A0-084C-4241-BEB8-68245E1A8B28@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070508060409040103030400"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/rl4-8TYReZQd9eESWPlF_GNRktA>
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 14:29:01 -0000

Le 04/08/2020 à 16:08, Christian Hopps a écrit :
> Given the name of the WG is "Stay Home, Meet Only Online", and one of 
> the chartered elements is to:
>
>     - The cadence of meeting scheduling and the mix of in-person
>     versus fully
>     online meetings going forward once the disruptions caused by the
>     pandemic
>     have subsided. ....
>
>
> I have avoided participating in this group as I assume it was founded 
> and is filled with like-minded people with a predetermined goal in 
> mind ... meeting only online -- it's right in the name.
>
> I do not agree with people who want to move from in person to "meeting 
> only online",


Is it that you do not agree by the heart, or you do not agree by the reason?

It might be that the reason suggests that online should be the only way 
to meet for some time to come.

It might be that by heart one can not agree with such interaction.  I 
agree with you: by heart, it is impossible to appreciate such 
artificiality of online meetings.

Alex


> the reasons to meet in person have been enumerated countless times on 
> the IETF discussion list, yet the push to eliminate the in person 
> meetings continue despite this. Who would want to have this same 
> debate ad nauseam in a WG?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>> On Aug 4, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind 
>> <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com 
>> <mailto:mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> a similar discussion is currently happening on 
>> themanycouches@ietf.org <mailto:manycouches@ietf.org>list as part of 
>> the new shmoo working group. Maybe you want check out the discussion 
>> there (or even move it over to that list).
>> Mirja
>> *From:*108attendees <108attendees-bounces@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:108attendees-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Antoni 
>> Przygienda <prz=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:prz=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>
>> *Date:*Tuesday, 4. August 2020 at 15:00
>> *To:*Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>, 
>> Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>>
>> *Cc:*"108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>" 
>> <108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
>> I agree with Chris, presentations are useful in many respects.
>> Timeslots need to be longer simply. In BIER we tend to bring as early 
>> presos the WG item/high impact/high quality things (this of course 
>> being subjective) but idea is of course for the slot being long 
>> enough e’one that is somehow relevant can present.  The audience will 
>> vote with their feet.
>> Also, mike discussions have high value albeit they need be tightly 
>> managed/clipped but this once-in-three-month- interactive slot on the 
>> mike between experts/newbies/people who wandered in opens aspects 
>> often that don’t come out on the mailing list or during preso
>> nTony
>> *From:*108attendees <108attendees-bounces@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:108attendees-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Christian Hopps 
>> <chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>
>> *Date:*Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 2:00 PM
>> *To:*Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com 
>> <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>>
>> *Cc:*Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>, 
>> "108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>" 
>> <108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
>> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2020, at 10:17 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com 
>>> <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, at 03:27, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 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”.
>>>>
>>> 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 was trying to figure out why I thought this wouldn't work well, and 
>> I think you identified the most important aspect (cache loading and 
>> aligning thoughts).
>> A couple addition things that presenting the slides during the 
>> meeting accomplishes, I think,
>> 1) It allows for pulling in some experts (and their viewpoints) who 
>> might make themselves available fully during meeting slots, but 
>> aren't really so involved in the WG that they read every draft or 
>> would watch videos of the slide presentations beforehand.
>> 2) For work that the WG ultimately will reject, it gives the authors 
>> the feeling that they were fully heard prior to that rejection. I 
>> know that this should be able to be done strictly on the list; 
>> however, human nature what it is, it sometimes helps when people 
>> actually see that other people listened to them. This might still 
>> work if there was lively back and forth during a Q&A session, but I 
>> suspect for this type of work many people wouldn't watch the premade 
>> videos b/c they suspected it wouldn't move forward, and so there'd be 
>> much less participation during the Q&A part.
>> In LSR we've certainly had meetings where we didn't have enough time, 
>> but that was primarily after we merged IS-IS and OSPF and hadn't 
>> figured things out. Lately things have been OK I think, up until IETF 
>> 108. For IETF 108 we didn't have enough time to run things the way we 
>> normally do -- 100m was definitely not enough time for us. For the 
>> next virtual, if nothing changes with the format (single session 100m 
>> max), we will be have to more limit who gets agenda slots, perhaps 
>> with some "if there's time" slots tacked on the end in case 
>> discussion times are not fully used on earlier presentations.
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>>> 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.
>>> Bron
>>> --
>>>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>>> brong@fastmailteam.com <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>
>>> --
>>> 108attendees mailing list
>>> 108attendees@ietf.org <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>
>