Re: [admin-discuss] Next steps towards a net zero IETF

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 04 April 2023 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AD6C14CE24; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id scasXHz64Aw7; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04AA4C14CF17; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.58] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1pjoiO-000Dc7-DA; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 18:01:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 18:01:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
cc: admin-discuss@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [admin-discuss] Next steps towards a net zero IETF
Message-ID: <88359D2BC625A65438B13B29@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.58
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xwk3GTPENuG3T8UBaP90ARoOlBE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 22:01:24 -0000


--On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 09:42 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04-Apr-23 18:20, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 4. Apr 2023, at 01:14, Michael Richardson
>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>> Or we could just start with having three f2f meetings per
>>> year, with more slots for informal meetings...
>> 
>> I just wanted to point out that we're seeing a different push
>> in the IESG from WG chairs, many of which want more WG
>> session time during IETF meetings. That isn't to say that
>> they wouldn't also want more informal time, but there is a
>> tussle here.
> 
> Understood, but over quite a few years I've sat in WG meetings
> where >50% of the time has been slide shows - often given at
> lightning speed without time to even read the slides properly.
> Of course, sometimes, the diagrams are helpful but that's the
> exception.
> 
> In the ideal world there'd be no presentation because
> everybody read the draft, one slide with open issues and then
> the discussion.

And the way to get closer to that ideal is with a variation on
Eliot's idea about getting a lot tougher on slot allocations.
I.e., if a WG gets a slot and >50% of the time is on slide
shows, they get only half that much time in the future... and
don't even get that half if they cannot demonstrate both need
and productive discussions.

   john