Re: [Manycouches] Summary of discussions on meeting cadence

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 09/10/2020 à 19:19, Michael Richardson a écrit :
> 
> Amelia Andersdotter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > These two different goals of meetings are somehow conflicting. If many
>      > WG participants are from the same geographical area or time zone, and
>      > their focus is on completing standards and specifications, it is more
>      > reasonable for these participants to organise interim meetings in their
>      > time-zone of convenience. But if participants feel that they want to do
>      > tourism in areas that they don't normally work on to get a more complete
>      > view of the internet, it makes more sense to have a condensed set of
>      > meetings in a week with rotating time-schedule as per already existing
>      > regional rotation as per RFC8719.
> 
> Your summary of the conflict is accurate, but the word "tourism" is rather
> loaded for me.
> 
> While many see the word and may understand "impromptu cross-area review", the
> term is loaded with negative attachments.
> For instance, the location of physical meetings has at times been criticised
> as being picked for touristic reasons.

Tourism:
- has negative co-notation to mean that the room was packed with people
   raising their hands to vote because told to do so.  They will not be
   seen again at the next meeting, as they already visited that City.
- is positive: productive meeting during the day, free of occupation in
   evening, see new things, cross-polinate the spirits, admit the
   differences in the world... 'get a more complete view of the
   Internet.'
- is something to not do during times of virus.

Alex

> 
> There is some significant negative experience with mic comments like,
>     "I haven't read the document, but..."
> 
> yet, often these comments *do* lead to significant issues.

> 
> Sometimes, though, they lead to an understanding that two WGs are facing the same
> issues, and that they should work together.  And getting this understanding
> is really quite valuable.
> 
> This is *PARTICULARLY* the case for new work (BOFs), and for the first few
> meetings of a newly formed WG.
> 
> This is also why heavily conflicted (physical) meeting schedules have been a
> growing issue.
> 
>      > Is the /purpose/ of IETF meetings something we should address directly
>      > before producing guidelines? The IETF Mission Statement currently is
>      > fairly outcome-oriented (i.e. could be construed as prioritizing
>      > focussed work over cross-pollination).'
> 
> I think that you raise an important question.
> let me try to answer it.
> 
> I think that we have a healthy growth of virtual interim meetings which are:
>    a) heavily focused.
>    b) frequent participant-time-zone optimized
>    c) typically occur at twice-monthly to monthly intervals appropriate for
>       getting work done.
> 
> While the mission statement is very outcome focused, that doesn't mean that
> every activity needs to be only outcome focused.  :-)
> 
> I think that the IETF "plenary" meeting times should be arranged to not just
> permit, but encourage cross-working-group participation.
> 
> I want the IETF meeting weeks focused on:
>    1) meta-activites like IESG, IAB, NOMCOM
>    2) *DISPATCH activities
>    3) BOFs
>    4) new WG meetings,
>    5) maybe WGs who have gone through some major milestone, and are rechartering
> 
> I would like there to be time to arrange 1:1 or rather-small-group meetings
> with ADs and document authors to talk through some lingering DISCUSSes.
> The gather.town was exceptionally useful for this.
> The RIOT Summit used it as well, and used it for side-meetings as well, and I
> think it well very well.  I don't how big a group it can handle on it's own,
> but it seemed that perhaps the RIOT Summit didn't need webex as well.
> But, RIOT is O(10^2), while IETF is O(10^3).
> 
> 
> So, I would like to have fewer tracks.
> Less like IETF108 and more like IETF107.  But, slightly longer days.
> In particular, I don't mind having some gaps where I can reasonably expect to
> find someone.
> 
> I don't think that spreading 107 across the month of April was great,
> although many WGs that had never had virtual interims sure learnt how.
> I would like the meeting restricted to a 5 or 7 day period, because "jet lag"
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>