RE: WG meeting structure

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> Doctor, Doctor, it's hurts when I try to resolve technical issues in a room
> with 100+ people....
> 
> So, why do we keep trying to do this? It doesn't work any better with the
> speakers at the front.  That is, we don't resolve issues any faster.
> (Sure, the audio might be better)

Because sometimes it works, believe it or not ;-).   I've seen technical issues resolved relatively quickly via microphone discussion among the key people.  IMHO, that's usually worth a try, but if it doesn't converge, there are alternatives.

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.

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.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael
> Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 10:02 AM
> To: '[e-mail]'
> Subject: Re: WG meeting structure
> 
> 
> STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Engaged discussion to resolve open technical issues is hard to do in
>     > rooms with 100+ people. Interim meetings, "unstructured time"
> meetings
>     > (using WebEx and an iPad-as-speakerphone for remote participants),
>     > working on topics that "the masses" don't care about, etc. are often
>     > the best way to get such engaged discussion.
> 
> Doctor, Doctor, it's hurts when I try to resolve technical issues in a room
> with 100+ people....
> 
> So, why do we keep trying to do this? It doesn't work any better with the
> speakers at the front.  That is, we don't resolve issues any faster.
> (Sure, the audio might be better)
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>