Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyrus Daboo" <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@networkresonance.com>; "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: "IETF Chair" <chair@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>; "IETF Announcement list"
<ietf-announce@ietf.org>; <iesg@iesg.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

> --On July 18, 2008 7:20:37 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla
> <ekr@networkresonance.com> wrote:
>
> > 2. People's ability to meet tends to expand to fill out the available
> > meeting time.
>
> I think this is a key point. Rather than expanding the number of slots why
> don't we look at using the time we have more efficiently. Some questions to
> ask include:
>
> How much work at a meeting could actually have been done on the mailing
> list beforehand?

A lot of it; too many meetings I have attended consist of presentations on I-Ds
which add nothing to that which could have been learnt beforehand by spending an
evening reading the I-D.
>
> What work do we do at a meeting that can't be easily done via a mailing
> list?

Not much; meetings in person can progress discussions faster provided all the
parties are present. e-mail is slug-mail compared to face-to-face discussions,
but it does depend on the parties being present.  Also, once you get above a
dozen or so active participants, you get those queues at the microphone so that
the response comes several round trips after the question making the discussions
hard to follow.

For me, the strongest requirement for meetings in person is for BOFs; for the
first one or two of a new working group, when the sap is rising; and for groups
that appear moribund (so the IESG can see if the working group should be wound
up).  Less often, there is a case for one when there is a hot technical issue on
which the working group is bogged down between competing proposals (IPv6 comes
to mind)

Tom Petch.

>
> Do we spend too much time with overviews of drafts that really should have
> been read by all attendees beforehand? Maybe it would be good for the first
> session on Monday to be an "Area Overview" session where an overview of all
> the latest drafts can be "presented" to give people a broader view of what
> is going on? Actually I have often felt that the IESG plenary would be a
> good place for area directors to give status updates/overviews of the work
> going on in their areas.
>
> Are 2 1/2 hour sessions really valuable, or would two shorter sessions be
> better?
>
> --
> Cyrus Daboo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf