Re: Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Mon, 02 September 2024 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
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 24E3FC151077 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
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 NSGkfI4MLTkE for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFD05C14F69F for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8a1d78e7b0so54272266b.3 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 15:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; t=1725316128; x=1725920928; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EnSGQ7hHVJMSSsLYnXnX9PuOOuL99qDg02mIyhAsvNw=; b=NhsFkfk6bD/F3vQaFMmIL4dEumnQv9S496tiIDFFVVDsB5WJPV+oKpbEFSonf4NmF0 lHmLGn23RBBz+D6sDZY3Hq13OIOrsRUe3LOXpPl+Zif9m/k184qyi0YTM5nKchy+vF0r QkhgxSz2VnTz/7xg4UvQ+7NNQnwyZ1cCKi1xs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725316128; x=1725920928; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=EnSGQ7hHVJMSSsLYnXnX9PuOOuL99qDg02mIyhAsvNw=; b=LjUaFB4N6KuFBZ2MTo3+qa1Gqdjes2AXtJxR/WI35NCx9CpC4+XmbKIAaVBqLfPU89 nZQ8qAvDI4zGRMixaSTZakXQVoDLuH8j19koWjTVBBqjTg7+ahj2+Jovipb+x5a2VhUa dKsrEdvvr8V5WqjLSjqZN/6j46QscdVx8qSmT+/QaFftl0mlUuoHmmv5JjGx8bjmEhEn Q9riKWX990ewJUG3ezqG/wr4/506SscT3K+SwoblofBVAnulrq/xMUF5tfstesBBNWWM kT96W+wGcSswn7xrG+A9F+NWAzikzyVNtHXncbTtzCjI8Ia8NomdkTxObWwK4PbNUlLY 2QSw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVZYTT98g7JcChbDobep840yqhDDHuA6s0JI4FngLG8DE2mgMIXcjLs+o3n1lyWOuoGYWozlcFbJA==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwkyEXYhpqyWoP+D/0m7MzBpjqxWBeyWoEUZUbJAAkhkxbT//KH 8WdYDHe8zkgAAZn78MfPpUdNFW9NV2KIt2y99LjINE6KXCRT1FrMPC3IXQvFRDffNh5LbAEg/WX VTWuf3zR2xyI9EadR9PCHTjd2ChZtaeQ0pdHF/g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF5+oD5T0hy/Zbtdsbyi0V9lmrGmX+WyBG8HLY5a4hIAM1g2jQA8p9d0FkArc5wbhPFWk5r2EIVjgFOJlLjKjk=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:c08:b0:a86:7983:a4a7 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a89fae1b894mr328694866b.38.1725316127483; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 15:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <dc4b8bba-7f4d-47a1-9376-bf91a9f03b64@lear.ch>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 18:28:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nWRqu4M2_Xo7Zj9CyWdsjPwknNYykgtNxQtWP9RjZcCjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e7832706212a76dd"
Message-ID-Hash: SENZSRXEXZM3YHSXAVOARHZNIF2G2CJE
X-Message-ID-Hash: SENZSRXEXZM3YHSXAVOARHZNIF2G2CJE
X-MailFrom: krose@krose.org
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/I6EYK7FQr9bH8fxi4SLZeE7zHpI>
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>

This is not a good analogy because IETF participants are not children and
are not compulsory school attendees. We are adults who have the freedom to
choose our own modes of participation so long as those do not overly
interfere with the official proceedings.

There are a great many useful perspectives on this issue on this thread,
and I find myself nodding at most of them. The common thread seems to be
something like "The value of the chat depends entirely on the participant."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'll add that chairs can help elevate side discussions by monitoring the
chat and asking people to get in the queue if there is something they feel
would be of substantive value to the entire audience.

Kyle


On Mon, Sep 2, 2024, 3:17 PM Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> 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.
>
> 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
>
>