Re: 2hr sessions and agendas

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

I'm backing up to your original suggestion.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 5:06 PM 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.
>

At a minimum, I'd suggest that the IESG (and, of course, Colin for the IRTF
- research groups also ask for slots out of the same pool of slots) ask for
a fairly firm agenda for at least one hour of a two-hour request.

Susan described her working group as using just about every tool a working
group has to move work items forward (discussion slots, side meetings, and
interim meetings) if virtually face to face discussion time is required for
that work item. I'd encourage chairs to consider interims if they need two
or more hours and aren't holding interims now.

*I note that Michael's suggestion was " encourage", not "require". *If your
group falls into this category, your AD/Colin  likely knows that, and it's
unlikely that an AD/Colin would tie a group down in a procrustean bed(*)
because of a rule that only applies 80 percent of the time.

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes


> 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.
>

It's worth noting that all chairs can do this now, with no IESG/secretariat
action required, if that's the right thing to do for your working
group/research group. If it's not the right thing to do, you probably know
that, and your AD (or Colin) probably knows that as well as you do.

My experience (and Gorry has already chimed in on this thread) is that the
secretariat will work diligently to satisfy "special requests" - TSVWG has
been requesting two slots, with at least one day in between, for years - so
I'd expect that if requesting two one-hour slots back to back for your
group is the right thing to do, that will happen if it's at all possible.

So I would encourage all chairs to Do The Right Thing for their groups,
with maybe a little more awareness of the impact of our decisions on other
groups that also need slots taken from a single and limited pool.

Make good choices, of course.

Best,

Spencer


> 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    [
>
>