Re: [hrpc] About the meeting yesterdayg

I agree that the time division was not ideal yesterday, but I think presentations did help our thinking and conversation further (also the observation that other standards bodies approach this problem differently is quite relevant I think, it might mean we're doing something useful). 

Since we have been running out of time quite consistently in recent meeting, it might be a solution to request more time, and then ensure we use a maximum of 50% of our time on presentations and at least 50% on discussions and bringing work further?

If people like that idea, I would also be very interested to hear whether people think it might be useful to do work in other configurations than the default (the default being: someone stands in front of the room and present something, and other queue in front of the mic (and most people are glued to their screen)). Could we use break-out groups to work on different documents? Or use break-out groups to discuss different topics with report backs at the end of the session?

Curious to hear your thoughts. 

Best,

Niels

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:06:48AM -0500, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I have reservations about the format of yesterday's meeting in
> Chicago. IMHO, there were too many formal presentations and not enough
> discussion on actual drafts.
> 
> The presentations were typically interesting (except the one by IEEE,
> which was on the verge of corporate public relations) but were not
> really for a RG meeting and, more important, ate 75 % of the meeting
> time, which is too much.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Re: [hrpc] About the meeting yesterdayg

Attachment: signature.asc