Re: WG meeting structure

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 15 May 2019 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 7C372120346 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vb4gxbqsY74 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 959821203F2 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA3A38271; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 13838E3B; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11173B3D; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
cc: "'wgchairs@ietf.org'" <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG meeting structure
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936305686F2@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <61D81D11-1BA0-4123-80C9-C7A97297ED5C@episteme.net> <BF668B4C-6D67-4D7D-A31F-C24523F04EB2@gmail.com> <c3469366-323a-4c15-a504-51e059660ac1@www.fastmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E18C7CF@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <13571.1557928942@localhost> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936305686F2@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:18:19 -0400
Message-ID: <1983.1557940699@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/J173dUCaOY1IK_F9aplzzycl3Ac>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:18:34 -0000

Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
    > An approach that I like is that if discussion at the microphones is
    > going nowhere slowly, figure out who the key participants are and
    > charter a design team with a near-term deadline to come back with a
    > preferred outcome or a set of thought-out alternatives that are
    > conducive to hums in a room with 100+ people ... getting to an
    > agreement to disagree is much easier in a small design team than in a
    > room with 100+ people.

Yes, this is a good plan.

This is why I would like every WG to have 1HR session with as few conflicts
as possible, early in the week, and a second session later on in the week,
after sufficient unstructured time to have hashed out a solution.

Okay, so not every problem can be solved with five people, two couches and
seven beers, but I'll bet that a good problem statement can be articulated in
such a period of time, such that if you really need the formalism of a
chartered design-team, then you at least have the text by the end of the week.

    > On the original topic, the U-shaped structure is interesting, but a WG
    > chairs table may still be needed on one side of the screen so that the
    > WG chairs have a complete view of the action without their backs turned
    > to anyone.   I also want to reinforce that use of that structure needs
    > to be at the discretion of WG chairs.  Thinking about the WGs that I
    > have chaired and currently chair, there have been WG meetings for which
    > the U-shaped structure would work well and WG meetings for which it
    > would have been disastrous.

Care you provide some details?

I have a hypothesis that the WGs in which it would not work are dysfunctional
for a multitude of reasons.

All the WG sessions are on youtube... I spend many days after each meeting
watching the meetings I missed.  Can you handle 1.5 speed? 1.75? 2x? :-)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-