Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication

I don’t think the proposals was to filter input. I agree that it is important to listen and haven different ways to provide feedback such that we can get a large variation of different views. That’s one of the reason why we have the open mic in the first place.

However, the open mic is not only a way to provide input because there  also is discussion and a large number people are “forced” to listen (more than e.g. on a mailings). Also the open mic is and should not be the only way to provide input. 

So the question for me is: how can we direct the input to the right input channel? And how can we use the limited amount of valuable time we have in the plenary most efficiently? For the second question for me that mean that we should try to use interactive discussion time in front of a large audience for those topics that this large audience is most interested in. This is not about surpassing other input (that would be a bad outcome) but maybe direct some of the input to other input channels and have a more structured approach about what to discuss in the open mic session at the plenary.

Mirja

> On 30. Jul 2021, at 13:45, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/29/21 10:12 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> 
>> I think the biggest problem with previous plenaries is that it is too easy for the general public to get on a soapbox, er the microphone line.
>> 
> IMO, this is a sign of strength.   An organization that can tolerate input from anyone can have a conscience, can be self-correcting.   Even if listening to such input is often tiring, occasionally such input is quite valuable.   I don't know of any effective way of filtering out the less-valuable input without also filtering the more-valuable input.
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch