Re: [Ietf108planning] Preview of survey on virtual meetings

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 24/04/2020, at 4:02 AM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> My de-duplicated list of feedback is:
> 
> Page 3 – the cookie option for “How important is it for each of the following to be included in a virtual IETF meeting?” is funny, but not needed
> 
> Page ? -- Assuming this applies to the worst possible timezone for you, how easy would it be for you to participate in each of the following virtual IETF meeting formats? (Skip any you don’t know about) – the visuals helped describe which days things were happening but the semantics of the vertical blue lines wasn’t intuitive to me.

Thanks - We'll see what others say before trying to address that.

> 
> Page ? -- Are you willing to participant more or less based on the registration fee.  Perhaps s/participate more/more likely to participate in the meeting/.  Maybe it was my incorrect read -- almost like "if I pay money I might participate in more/less in working group meetings".  It seems like it’s a meeting specific answer -- if you charge for the meetings, will you come to any of the meeting?

Changed that completely following the feedback to have actual fee levels (100%,75%,50%,25% of in-person) and ask "For each of these different sets of meeting registration fees, how likely is it that you will participate in an online IETF meeting? (skip any you don't know about)"

Jay

> 
> Roman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ietf108planning <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:39 AM
> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] FW: Preview of survey on virtual meetings
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Jay and others,
>> 
>> Please find below some comments on the survey.
>> 
>> "This survey is vital" isn't "vital" a little bit too much ?
>> "As we are asking f" better expand the "we" ?
>> 
>> Wow what a strange way to select a country... Can we simply list them? 
>> (I love to see Belgium at the top for once :-) )
> 
> I agree that we really don't need this level of granularity -- a major geography option seems better, just like we do for.... oh, bugger, I didn't realize we capture this level of granularity for meetings -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/106/country/
> Oh, and give up on ever seeing Belgium at the top of any list, ever...
> (ooooh! Burn!) (other than, perhaps, for a: chocolate and b: Hercule
> Poirot)
> 
> 
> I'm somewhat uncomfortable that this survey it too long / granular, and that we are overcollecting / people will get bored midway through and we bias towards hardcore attendees...
> 
> "Subscriber to an IETF mailing list within the last year"  -- this feels like weird wording. I don't think I **subscribed** to any mailing lists last year...
> 
> "Posted to an IETF mailing list within the last year", "Posted to an IRTF mailing list within the last year" (and similar) -- do we need this level of granularity? Could it instead be "Posted to an IETF or IRTF mailing list within the last year" (and same for subscribe, chair, etc).
> 
> "Did you participate in the one week virtual IETF 107 meeting (20-27 March 2020) that replaced the in-person Vancouver meeting?" -- what does this **mean**? I listened to some session, was that "participation"?
> 
> "How many other IETF Meetings have you participated in remotely (excluding IETF 107)?", "How many IETF Meetings have you participated in in-person?". Ok, but then is it really necessary to ask "How many IETF Meetings have you participated in, in total?"
> 
> 
> "Did the scheduling of the virtual interims since the one week virtual IETF 107 meeting (20-27 March 2020) allow you to participate in all of those you wanted to?" -- the "since" confuses me --- does this mean the ones *after* the one week virtual (AKA, the other ones)?
> 
> "If an in-person IETF meeting needs to be cancelled, should we hold a virtual IETF meeting instead?"  Yes! No! Maybe!!! I don't know how to answer this without knowing what the eligibility implications, etc are. Perhaps we can ignore this, but maybe including some weasel word about "assuming we figure out the eligibility implications" ?
> 
> 
> I don't know who added "Cookies", but whoever it was, thank you!
> 
> "Have each WG write 3 sentences to justify why they need to meet during the meeting week rather than as an interim meeting" --- oooh, interesting, but how do we evaluate the answers? Monkey knife fight?
> 
> I think that there are way too many time zones listed - we may need to manually make a drop down if survey monkey doesn't have a ~24 item list... Yes, we may miss UTC+12:45, but meh...
> 
> "How important is it to have the following functionality integrated into the video conferencing tool? (Skip any you don’t know about)" -- perhaps add "integration"? So your datatracker login gets you in (this isn't limited to Meetecho, we should be able to integrate something from DT -> <webex/ zoom/ meet / whatever...)
> 
> "How important is it for the queue management tool to provide the following features? (Skip any you don’t know about) " -- Hums?
> 
> 
> "Is virtual hum technology needed?" -- Ah. It feels weird and confusing to not have this on the previous page...
> 
> "How important is it to have a virtual hallway tool that replicates the hallway environment?" s/replicates/attempts to replicate/ -- we cannot really recreate the hallway environment. Aslo, perhaps add: do you know about [e-mail]?
> 
> Phew!
> W
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> In "Subscriber to an IETF mailing list within the last year" all other points use the past tense of a verb and not a noun.
>> In the same list, should we add "side meetings" ?
>> 
>> "How many IETF Meetings have you participated in, in total" is a little unclear, could we add 'physical and remote" ?
>> 
>> "If an in-person IETF meeting needs to be cancelled, should we hold a virtual IETF meeting instead?" should be qualified by a "one-week virtual IETF meeting" ?
>> 
>> Is it "prioritize" or "force a meeting" for newly formed WG? I suggest 
>> the latter
>> 
>> I had to stop after a while because way too many questions, I am afraid...
>> 
>> 
>> -éric
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iesg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Jay Daley 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 02:27
>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Preview of survey on virtual meetings
>> 
>>    The small group set up by the IESG, LLC and IRTF Chair [1] to plan 
>> for IETF 108 has developed a survey to be sent out as widely as 
>> possible to IETF/IRTF participants to get views on the Future of 
>> Virtual Meetings.  You are now welcome to preview the survey [2] and 
>> provide feedback.  You can create a surveymonkey account and comment 
>> directly on the preview or send comments to [e-mail]
>> 
>>    We are hoping to send this survey out on Tuesday 28 April US time so please have any comments in well before that.  The survey is expected to run for ~9 days, less than is ideal but necessary given the possible work ahead.
>> 
>>    If you have any suggestions on distribution then those are also most welcome.
>> 
>>    thanks
>>    Jay
>> 
>>    [1]  Alissa Cooper, Colin Perkins, Martin Duke, Alvaro Retana, Alexa Morris, Greg Wood, Jay Daley
>>    [2]  
>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=wlD1DqfXW8oxNST4ldDKk4dUN9O
>> VHPs_2BCNWKZzQXuRAPHQA8Dy3EFy08_2B14_2BJekO#
>> 
>> 
>>    --
>>    Jay Daley
>>    IETF Executive Director
>>    [e-mail]
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Ietf108planning mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
> 
> 
> 
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
>   ---maf
> 
> --
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
> -- 
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]