RE: WG meeting structure

["Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I like Pete's proposal.
I've experienced session with u-shape room several years ago (IETF88 I think) for the NMRG (I know RG are different from WG) and it worked quite well for the 20-30 participants that were present. Remote participation was not supported though.

One suggestion to try to satisfy the various needs/constraints could be that WG meet at least twice (one in a U-shape, and one in a lecture-style room) during the IETF week, and adapt their agenda to fit the type of discussion/interaction/presentation that needs to happen. Session for the u-shape room would be more to address open issues, discuss on technical topics. Lecture-style could be more for summary/status presentations and WG status, etc.
Sessions for WG could also be defaulted to shorter slots i.e. 1hr.

--Laurent.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 09:57
> To: Gorry Fairhust <[e-mail]>
> Cc: WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: WG meeting structure
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2019-5-15, at 10:08, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > For me, it served very badly when the a U-table was setup and then there
> were banks of chairs postioned to observe it. A part of the issue was that
> it encouraged people at the table to have an Interim-style discussion -
> engagement was faster with each other. These people benefited from cues in
> body language, eye contact, etc.
> 
> that was exactly the intent. QUIC never made much progress on any open
> issues during the IETF meetings, because the serialized "discussion"
> enforced by the mic lines is simply very inefficient at that. So we tried
> to replicate a discussion style like we have during interims, where we
> make much more rapid progress.
> 
> > Others became passive observers. Many people had their back to me and
> spoke to others without me knowing who they were or who they were talking
> to; I couldn't see who was speaking and it could be hard to see a
> presenter's face as they presented. I even saw a case where the person
> leading/chairing was seated with their back to many of the people in the
> room. To me it was like being a remote observer at an Interim.
> 
> In that particular room, the seats for the chairs where badly placed, but
> that is easily corrected.
> 
> I guess it all boils down to what a WG meeting at an IETF is for: is it
> for making rapid progress on open technical issues? Or is it for
> presentations to a broader audience with limited Q&A? The answer is
> obviously going to be different for different WGs, and even for different
> topics within a WG.
> 
> For QUIC, since we haven't had the chance for another experimental room
> setup in a while, we are actively scheduling things so that presentation-
> style topics are mostly presented with more limited discussion at IETFs,
> and (most) other things only at interims.
> 
> Lars