Re: [Ietf108planning] FW: Preview of survey on virtual meetings

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

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=wlD1DqfXW8oxNST4ldDKk4dUN9OVHPs_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