Re: [113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds

[Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 7:00 AM Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A virtual interim would be a little better. It would be at a time
> convenient to all of us, we would have just the interested people (even if
> that’s 5) and we can have them whenever it’s convenient, not just in IETF
> week.
>
> Avoiding that picture of a big room with three people sitting in the back
> is also a plus.
>
> As we learn how to make these hybrid meetings work, we may want to avoid
> having groups like that meet within IETF week. Virtual interims are still
> available. Perhaps it’s better to leave that slot available to groups that
> can make good use of it, like OAuth or TLS or LAMPS (to name just a few
> groups I know that could use more time).
>

This is a really good point, Yoav.
The OAuth WG did not meet during the Virtual IETF meeting period.
Instead, usually after each Virtual IETF meeting, we scheduled a *series of
1-hour interim meetings*, each one dedicated to discuss *one document* in
detail.
This could be a model that such groups could use, to avoid taking time
slots needed by other WGs that could use more time.

Regards,
 Rifaat


> Yoav
>
> On 26 Mar 2022, at 11:11, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Yoav,
>
> That meeting was bad, but would moving it to fully virtual meeting have
> made it any better? I do not think so, since, as you already mentioned, the
> majority were remote anyway.
>
> There are so many factors that can impact the performance of a WG: the
> number of people attending, the interests of people in the work being
> discussed, the energy in the WG, etc.
>
> I guess I am arguing against fully virtual meeting in the future. There is
> no way that we can get even close to the results of meeting in person.
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022, Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Rifaat
>>
>> > On 25 Mar 2022, at 18:03, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Leif,
>> >
>> > I had a very positive experience with the OAuth WG meetings.
>> >
>> > We had two official meetings and two side meetings.
>> > With the official meetings, most of the attendees were local, but we
>> had good participation from remote attendees too.
>> > The side meeting allowed us to discuss other topics that resulted in
>> making progress that was later presented during the second official
>> meeting, Another topic was discussed and we have a plan on how to proceed
>> from here.
>> > One random hallway chat with someone that noticed that I chair the
>> OAuth WG and provided me with verbal feedback on his experience using
>> OAuth. We discussed that briefly and I asked him if he is willing to share
>> his thoughts with the WG. As a result, that person created a few slides
>> that captured his feedback and presented these to the WG the next day
>> during one of the side meetings.
>> >
>> > It would be really difficult to get even closer to what we achieved
>> during this week if it was completely virtual.
>>
>> But compare and contrast that with the experience of I2NSF, where there
>> were 3-6 people in the room (other than you), and where the chairs, the
>> presenters, pretty much everyone but Diego were remote.
>>
>> Was the I2NSF experience any better than a virtual interim?
>>
>> Yoav
>>
>> BTW: Thanks again for sitting in for us.
>>
>>
>