Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for the interesting notes.
I had difficulties with the time... 7am was clear, but I was foggy.
1pm was usually in conflict.    I did not feel my time was well used.

Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > * Scenario 1 – A recommendation was made and there seems to be agreement among participants in a virtual interim meeting that included some of the more vocal WG participants. What should happen next? What kind of additional interactions need to take place to get to rough consensus?
    > * Luigi, Lars, Bron, Michael Richardson, Christian Amsuss, Maria Ines Robies
    > * Summary email of the decision to the list.
    > * Chairs set a date to receive objections.
    > * What’s important is that the mailing list gets the summary of the
    > decision and why - not a rehashing of all the options.
    > * Point out in meeting that it will be confirmed on the list, and those
    > who were present in the meeting

I think that this part of the part that annoys me the most, but I like what
you captured.   Chairs are empowered to determine consensus, and it is best,
I think, for the chairs to state the consensus that they see, and provide a
date by which to disagree.  Invoke Cunningham's law if you have to.
I really would like chairs to do this for Adoption Calls.
I see no point in +1 from the authors of the document.
If the chairs doubt that there are enough reviewers, then they should state,
"We think that document X is within our charter, and we'd like to adopt it,
 but we don't think there are enough reviewers."

The only time I think that a +1 from authors is useful is if the chairs think
that one or more of the authors are just not really involved.  But, an IPR
check would also reveal that.

    > * examples for IETF working groups?
    > * Examples like: bringing more people into the conversation.  Create an
    > environment where people feel comfortable contributing.  In some of the
    > meetings, a few voices (often the experts) - not a lot of others asking
    > questions, re-framing of what was stated to help people collaborate.

Also, just reaching out and asking people.  "Bob, what do you think?"

    > * One participant in our session switched from busy agenda to lots of
    > time for discussion, which was good.

Yes.

    > hard to judge consensus when the working group is silent.  Are people
    > uninterested, or OK → only the core people are interested.  Other
    > chairs: how do you handle it, particularly remote?

Invoke Cunningham's Law, provide a random, probably wrong, view :-)

    > * “Is this the hill you are willing to die on?” → sometimes can encourage consensus.
    > * ALWAYS set a deadline when confirming the mailing list, so that
    > people have a limit to send.

Yes, but be a bit generous.  People with meeting conflicts might take two-three weeks
before they have time to watch the youtube.
I also assume everyone goes on a 10 day vacation after IETF week :-)
(I never seem to get to...)

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-