Re: 2hr sessions and agendas

["Gorry (erg)" <[e-mail]>]

I am pleased the IESG are looking and thinking about this…

> On 15 Jan 2022, at 23:06, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> IETF Agenda <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Requests for more than two hours of total meeting time are unlikely to
>> succeed. In special cases, you may request more than two hours of
>> meeting time, but the IESG will likely request a rationale, and
>> scheduling pressure may still make it impossible to grant any
>> additional meeting slots. Please see this email from the IESG [2] for
>> more detailed guidance on how to structure your session requests.
> 
> I want to start by thanking the IESG for being more rigorous here.
> 
> I would like the IESG to encourage any WG asking for 2hr (or more) present a clear
> agenda for the time usage, and that no more than 50% that time be for
> presentations and/or status updates.
> The bulk of the time should be for discussion, ideally relating to identified
> issues.  I don't think that this is a new request, I just think it's worth repeating.
> 
> I'd like to suggest that we have no 2hr slots (like we did on Thursday at
> IETF112), and that all requests for 2hrs be turned into two requests for 1hr.
> 
> Even if I don't get to travel in the end, I'm excited for 113.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
My 2c:
I have chaired many sessions over the years and I have observed the variety of ways working groups can use sessions depending on the needs of the group. Suggesting ways that might work  is definitely good - I would really be against mandating a specific standard format - and urge ADs to talk to each group to see what they may best do.

Gorry