RE: WG meeting structure

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

>     > On the original topic, the U-shaped structure is interesting, but a WG
>     > chairs table may still be needed on one side of the screen so that the
>     > WG chairs have a complete view of the action without their backs turned
>     > to anyone.   I also want to reinforce that use of that structure needs
>     > to be at the discretion of WG chairs.  Thinking about the WGs that I
>     > have chaired and currently chair, there have been WG meetings for which
>     > the U-shaped structure would work well and WG meetings for which it
>     > would have been disastrous.
> 
> Care you provide some details?
> 
> I have a hypothesis that the WGs in which it would not work are dysfunctional
> for a multitude of reasons.

Sure:

Area-wide catch-all WG spanning a bunch of topics, e.g., TSVWG - the U-shape will tend to result in many of those seated at the U being disengaged on topics in which they are not involved.   Mic lines result in self-selection of interested participants for each topic, which works well as the WG moves from topic to topic.

Very active WG for which the "working set" of seriously involved participants exceeds the seated capacity of the U-shape.

Beyond that, I have a general concern that the U-shape accompanied by expectations that seats at the U are for active participants may implicitly tend to discourage newcomers and tourists ... who may have crucial insights that everyone else in the WG has missed ...

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:18 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: '[e-mail]'
> Subject: Re: WG meeting structure
> 
> 
> Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > An approach that I like is that if discussion at the microphones is
>     > going nowhere slowly, figure out who the key participants are and
>     > charter a design team with a near-term deadline to come back with a
>     > preferred outcome or a set of thought-out alternatives that are
>     > conducive to hums in a room with 100+ people ... getting to an
>     > agreement to disagree is much easier in a small design team than in a
>     > room with 100+ people.
> 
> Yes, this is a good plan.
> 
> This is why I would like every WG to have 1HR session with as few conflicts
> as possible, early in the week, and a second session later on in the week,
> after sufficient unstructured time to have hashed out a solution.
> 
> Okay, so not every problem can be solved with five people, two couches and
> seven beers, but I'll bet that a good problem statement can be articulated in
> such a period of time, such that if you really need the formalism of a
> chartered design-team, then you at least have the text by the end of the
> week.
> 
>     > On the original topic, the U-shaped structure is interesting, but a WG
>     > chairs table may still be needed on one side of the screen so that the
>     > WG chairs have a complete view of the action without their backs turned
>     > to anyone.   I also want to reinforce that use of that structure needs
>     > to be at the discretion of WG chairs.  Thinking about the WGs that I
>     > have chaired and currently chair, there have been WG meetings for
> which
>     > the U-shaped structure would work well and WG meetings for which it
>     > would have been disastrous.
> 
> Care you provide some details?
> 
> I have a hypothesis that the WGs in which it would not work are
> dysfunctional
> for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> All the WG sessions are on youtube... I spend many days after each meeting
> watching the meetings I missed.  Can you handle 1.5 speed? 1.75? 2x? :-)
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>