Re: WG meeting structure

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

All,

I agree with most of what what Fred says, drawing on experience from
other wg's.

I'm a bit nervous when this type discussions pops up. As long they are
discussions on "good ideas we tried, and the results we had", I think it
is fine.

When they slide away to instruct wg chairs what they should do, I'm
very concerned.

I'm convinced that when it comes to IETF wg's we don't have and will
never have a seating arrangement that fit all wg's, nor fit a single
working group for all of its life time.

If there are experiments necessary, let the wg chairs do the experiments
and the evaluation of the experiments.

/Loa


On 2019-05-17 10:04, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On May 16, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Fred Baker writes:
>>> And we generally have a few tables toward the front, with the
>>> express understanding that people sitting there have read the drafts
>>> in prep for the meeting. That tends to be the "core" group for at
>>> least some discussions.
>>
>> Kind of annoying though when you're one of those participants though
>> and have to keep squeezing out from the middle to get to the mic line.
>> I imagine this could be fairly easily remedied though by remove a row
>> or two of gallery seating to allow the tables to be a little more
>> spaced.
> 
> That, of course, depends on room size, and that actual number of people that show up. IPv6 Operations seems to randomly vary between 75 and 200, which is in part why I’m unconvinced about a layout that works well for 20 people. Every meeting doesn’t need to be organized for 200, and it’s true that in every meeting of 200 there is a meeting of 20 struggling to be had - a different 20 on each draft. But that doesn’t mean that every meeting is or should be organized for 20 people.
> 
> I also have questions about Meetecho, which would really like whoever is currently speaking to stand in a small square at exactly one of the three microphones. If we really want that form of A/V (and it looks like I’ll be dependent on it in July), I think we’re going to have to seriously rethink it. Zoom, perhaps, or something like it, using every laptop as a camera, microphone, and display for its owner, might be a solution, if it runs on IPv6.
> 
> In Prague, besides having a giant box or something occupying the center, and obscuring my view, of a good part of the room, I’m not at all sure there was “extra” floor space for aisles and space between rows in any of the breakout rooms on the first two floors (Kaplan I-Iii, or the ones in the “business” area). We had about 70 people, I think, and that worked because some were willing to stand against the back wall.
> 
> In Bangkok, I sat in on hrpc, which had 20-30 people arranged as Pete suggests and didn’t have Meetecho; we still needed to pass a mike around the room simply for people to be able to hear each other. It did allow people to get a lot of opinions voiced. As someone else noted, I wouldn’t have wanted to be the jabber scribe, although jabber might have been a useful solution to “the mike’s at the other end of the room and I want to talk”.
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]