Re: [Ext] Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 02 September 2024 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 C7798C14F70D for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZxtG9MlCBSZU for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549A9C14F6BE for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 482GfxSR023456 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:41:59 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:52:07 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:52:07 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: wgchairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey
Thread-Index: AQHa/VhxM5jtNbomGEKXgx6CxcxCxg==
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:52:06 +0000
Message-ID: <57DD1871-63C0-4884-8967-25DB8972A29B@icann.org>
References: <7487E6AA-A8BE-42A9-9E80-F85C49ABF026@ietf.org> <CAHbuEH72xCnM6_F+A+jP3nPkNY2sHa_zG4Skbhdu40SBgXSdcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH72xCnM6_F+A+jP3nPkNY2sHa_zG4Skbhdu40SBgXSdcA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9F6B9025B2C6AA4C88C97047CAB8F52B@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-02_04,2024-09-02_01,2024-09-02_01
Message-ID-Hash: WYZWUGZZ2PQMW24JOVE65XH2MK2MPF6O
X-Message-ID-Hash: WYZWUGZZ2PQMW24JOVE65XH2MK2MPF6O
X-MailFrom: paul.hoffman@icann.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
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/LHNIA0cEefPQHg-9ZW5hFOJv4yA>
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>

On Sep 2, 2024, at 09:42, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Jay.
> 
> 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. One person is tagged with monitoring in order to bring to the Mic line the layer needed (the person who may be remote can request the item be stated in the Mic line.
> 
> This format does not work well outside of the IETF and may be an adjustment to some new to the IETF. However, we have a lot of high-bandwidth people involved in the IETF and this is an outlet for them to get work done (provide review, provide feedback, engage in discussion to understand points on a presentation another in the chat can respond to, etc.). For many of us, the chat is very important and would not have been noted as we've grown accustomed to it.  However, this format is really hard to use in many other settings as it is too much for a lot of people to manage both listening and using chat.
> 
> It is well suited to a lot of participants of the IETF and makes meetings a bit faster so we get more accomplished. 

Thanks, Kathleen. I was going to agree with what Jay wrote about "the in-session chat is a distraction" because it usually is for me. However, you're quite right that it is not a distraction for some others, and is indeed quite useful to them.

One thing that I worry about for the chat (other than my limited attention span) is that some things get said there that would have be valuable at the mic and therefore in the minutes. As a minutes-taker, I would never be able to keep up with both following the mic line and the chat, but that then limits what someone who later reads my minutes would understand about "what was said".

I don't have a good answer here other than maybe "the minutes should point to the chat as well as the recordings". Maybe in some groups someone will review the chat and, when the minutes are posted for review, add relevant chat bits to them; that could be problematic but so are many things with the way some WGs do minutes.

--Paul Hoffman