Re: Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 03 September 2024 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED94C151077 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 18:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bze82YqMrMU8 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 18:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E04C14F6F3 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 18:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2601:1c2:c183:cfc1:5172:6730:c8d8:50d7] ([IPv6:2601:1c2:c183:cfc1:5172:6730:c8d8:50d7]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPSA id 4831175X037577; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 01:01:07 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5URh5bnofpnVAQGwYqAQItnO"
Message-ID: <75730386-05fc-4e71-abed-1d4a6c33b4c2@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 18:01:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <7487E6AA-A8BE-42A9-9E80-F85C49ABF026@ietf.org> <CAHbuEH72xCnM6_F+A+jP3nPkNY2sHa_zG4Skbhdu40SBgXSdcA@mail.gmail.com> <cf22ba70-330a-a912-f838-3010fa423f6e@nohats.ca> <dc4b8bba-7f4d-47a1-9376-bf91a9f03b64@lear.ch>
Content-Language: en-US
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <dc4b8bba-7f4d-47a1-9376-bf91a9f03b64@lear.ch>
Message-ID-Hash: R6LCISNPQU2R6BKL4COKNLOJDNC3FXX4
X-Message-ID-Hash: R6LCISNPQU2R6BKL4COKNLOJDNC3FXX4
X-MailFrom: joelja@bogus.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-wgchairs.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: wgchairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/CFRgYrsEWhatLa1crLe9s-LXgKA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:wgchairs-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:wgchairs-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:wgchairs-leave@ietf.org>

On 9/2/24 12:17, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Just a few years ago, I had a teacher who would throw erasers at us 
> for "passing notes in class" (More than a few of us walked out of a 
> classroom with chalked up sweaters; he had great aim).  The more 
> polite version of this is for the chair to say, “Let's have one 
> meeting, please."  But it may also be a signal that a topic needs more 
> discussion time, as some may feel that they can't get their views 
> across in the allotted time.
>
It's a work session not a lecture. that tooling should support with 
working, and if that means it captures contributions in the form of side 
converstations that are supporting the outcome that results in documents 
being published, and the contributions being captured that is a good thing.

> Eliot
>
> On 02.09.2024 20:50, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>
>>> The summary is helpful. I'm going to counter the first point, the 
>>> chat facilitates the flow of a meeting, enabling a level of feedback 
>>> that is not
>>> appropriate for the Mic line, yet helpful in terms of another layer 
>>> of feedback. Many contribute to it knowing that some will catch up 
>>> later and
>>> that is fine.
>>
>> However, those engaged in the chat are missing what the meeting has
>> moved on to. So while it is not as distracting as people talking or
>> whispering, I think it is still not often a net positive to the meeting.
>> Making a note, and then emailing the list afterwards with a non time
>> constrained message would likely be better for everyone.
>>
>> That said, the chat is very tempting to plomp some opinion/data on,
>> and I'm guilty of it myself as well.
>>
>> Paul
>>