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

["Deen, Glenn (Comcast Cable)" <[e-mail]>]

On 9/3/24, 8:43 AM, "Bob Hinden" <[e-mail]> wrote:
        Or perhaps better, asking people to bring their issue to the meeting queue.

I agree that getting the people in the chat to bring their issue to the rest of the meeting using the Meeting Queue is a reasonable thing.

The old WG process of having Jabber scribes monitoring the chat was needed because many remote people were only listening via audio streams and so jabber was their way to ask questions to the room.   But times have changed and IETF meetings now have full support for remote people to interact with the people in the room.

Now that IETF WG meetings a fully hybrid it’s entirely reasonable to expect someone with a comment to join the Queue and make the comment to the room without the aid of a Jabber scribe.

One thing WG chairs can do to help is to give enough time for comments to come into the queue and  give a heads up WELL BEFORE the queue is closed.   I’ve noticed a growing trend by some WG chairs to aggressively manage the queues including only giving small windows to join, and abruptly just closing the queue.

Instead of a warning about the plan to close the queue, some chairs say without warning “this topic seems to be getting a lot of discussion; the queue has been closed and you’ll have to take it to the list”.

A better practice is to announce, “the queue is going to stop accepting new joiners in X minutes, so jump in now if you want to comment.”

-glenn