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

["Tobias Gondrom" <[e-mail]>]

<IAOC hat = "off">
Ps.: and I would like to add that at least in my personal understanding the content and format of the WG meetings is under the mandate of the WG chairs, the IESG and IETF chair. Same like the IETF meeting agenda is also not set by the IAOC. Of course the IAOC could (and I assume would be happy to) include questions from the IESG into the usual meeting survey, but I don't think it is the IAOC's place to discuss the content or how many Powerpoints are used within the WG meeting. IMHO that is for WG chairs and IESG to decide. And with these expectations, it is the IAOC task to arrange for an environment that is supporting to fulfill the expectations from the WG chairs, IETF and the IESG. 



-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:09 AM
To: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>; IETF <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities)

Toerless,

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

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> 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.

Bob