Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities)

Bob Hinden <> Tue, 18 April 2017 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2216F1314EB for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NHHGDOyYLzuG for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A3D61314D5 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o22so11474073iod.3 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=XNarIW8w/LeSBA3Uu1ZPtplIX47eAQw1WEg2Y/6WTEo=; b=eo7uIsFHZ5HOF72+IyOH9STUx4GvhF6/DrCx8mmpSlrnpe+UbobR3suBK+ZI9VT/YP ihemvf1xm5V2+aSMR5NL4ESIuEIAONwAxo5hDXd9wDL0z9s3VTsH9/8XBKJTYPyePx0f y31uFT7OU/9s+bl45XhaCndzA+LRaqxprAAJwZ1Qj1YL4hIselUxt4sKNltToqBwyfPC b6v2SAkyQ4RbVpCtrB3bIaPJa7TClB2i71XF0rYDK6Ui51BY3cmqbVdf1Y70A+cr35FP m/GXhkrnOD6yB4Nkd0MI7K6390TY9RDL44Jjx62SOyXygVM1aTqBaqgHIExAkAS8aDg6 wzzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=XNarIW8w/LeSBA3Uu1ZPtplIX47eAQw1WEg2Y/6WTEo=; b=j6utP0nKJ838YLeFh/twZggSCCHxjrFUjY9Dpe2Spg3HvdGcV6zSW89UP4m3aU4BM0 8hmTe1XB9XQxSPQqXU8WYI1p3XDXO6Y0zT2l2A+RvfkPNyxeH0GOOd4iLwouqKApgQJs esziuTvK2BIaK0L0eDc+9ycXDgcPkYbEZTkW9UI+0e9bxuMIi/xlaA9QlCTuA7xQmqgI pqSrEml7gcEnNm9koJIOkU1pd3oB4ZIv6Znvh8uLlYRGRiYGLrbPNbC+lput9jBXFwUt G+sWS7i+bCjVHtbWjORu/xqLYGlSDVkMWYKrRnUDSAx+p8gHlRmRt2Psj7AGmNg3nXvq rulQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4c2jnZRVRfwRnNTBJ+R8WLVnaYxwkebqqpbbRJK869eX3ljnsO UrRX/Z9DhtNYdg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 185mr433071iow.122.1492556929612; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 12sm487748itl.31.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB0F78A3-4D17-45C7-8835-774B3E089C1D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:08:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Stephen Farrell <>, Michael Richardson <>, IETF <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>
References: <> <> <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:08:52 -0000


Responding with this thread as it’s not about meeting locations.

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 18/04/17 22:22, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> For example, there is a lot of death by powerpoint in meetings that pushes off
>> high bandwidth discussions ("oh, we're out of time"). AFAIK, most active work
>> on drafts during IETF meeting week happens outside of the WG meetings. I think that
>> a) was not the original plan, and b) i have not seen IAOC sending around questionaires
>> what/how to improve the quality of the meetings in this respect.

Regarding powerpoint, the problem isn't the use of slides, it the w.g., chairs not dealing with presenters who shows up with 20 slides for a 10 minutes slot, and the chairs not allocating enough time for a real discussions.

I think the meetings would be a lot more productive if a w.g. could have a meeting at the start of the week, work on the the issues during the week, send updates to the mailing list, have email and face to face discussions, and then have a second session at the end of the week to get consensus.  Clearly, impossible to schedule this with our current number of working groups, but I think it would make for a more productive week.