Re: [Manycouches] many-fine-dinners --- a view on how to organize virtual meetings

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

First, I am not certain what I, or the WG wants to do with this document.
I feel I'm getting feedback as if it was a WG document, suggesting consensus
words.

If the WG wants to adopt this, and find a few co-authors... or maybe even
take it over, that would be good.

Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    ce> Section 1.2, "IETF 108 would be best described as a sprint."

    ce> I would classify IETF 108, and IETF 109, more like a typical IETF
    ce> meeting attended remotely, which is not a sprint in my mind. You
    ce> needed to pace yourself for the week, so more like a 10K :)

I guess that I feel it was more sprint-like, because there was no time for
lunch, side meetings, etc.  The day was shorter and was much faster paced.

What word would you like to use here?

    ce> Section 2.1, "Heavily conflicted (physical) meeting schedules have been a growing issue ..."

    ce> This depends on the type of attendee as well. If focused on a few WGs
    ce> only, a more comressed agenda is better. For people who like to dive
    ce> into everything, as is thankfully common with many long time IETFs,
    ce> the packed agenda results in conflicts and difficulty checking out
    ce> new things.

This wording, "people who like to dive into everything", feels rather
flippant to me.  You write it as if it's a personal choice.  A whim.
I wonder if the ADs feel this way too.

The IESG likes to make lots of little WGs, which are highly focused.
That means that to do certain things, one has to go to many more WGs than
might previously have been the case.
The charters say that we are supposed to coordinate with other WGs.

    ce> Section 2.2.2, "This document suggests that the IETF virtual meeting week be focused on:

    ce> I would add the hackathon and put it somewhere in the middle. One
    ce> concern is that if many WGs are not meeting, fewer people will want
    ce> to attend the in-person meeting and others will have a harder time to
    ce> justify it. This would also hurt the Hackathon as the Hackathon alone
    ce> may not be enough to justify a trip.

This confuses me rather a lot.  Above, you suggest that many people are
focused on a few WGs.  I guess that means three or four maximum, right?
How do these people justify the trip now?

I am very happy to include significant text about how the Hackathon fits in.
In many ways, I think that the (in-person) Hackathon activity are rather MORE
important than the WG meetings.  I think that Stephen Farrel has said
something similiar.

    ce> Section 2.2.2, "Rather than attempt to compress the schedule ..."
    ce> For me, the agenda for IETF 106 worked very well. The side
    ce> meeting/free timeslot that was added plus breakfast, lunch, and
    ce> dinner/post dinner were great and sufficient for this, including side
    ce> meetings/BAR-BOFs, Hackdemo, etc. some of those evenings. Improved
    ce> stay-for-lunch options would save a great deal of time and help
    ce> facilitate as well.

IETF106 was still too congested for me.  I would also like to free up more
in-person time for side meetings, BAR-BOFs, etc.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide