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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 02 September 2024 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 65797C14F749 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5Xcaf60daLQr for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4BA1C14F6A6 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5bef295a429so4653710a12.2 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1725296275; x=1725901075; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bYSuBgXlnjcq/aPJZiHO1I/V5mO0FJARti73eNNCaCc=; b=cVeZlUtpesLjG7Mz/IUdYsyuQyPJMRa9wLZD11my/1CNgFokkV+++eag9/u6ygWGYz Djz0TXQs+K2UZuBvWQfxdMa/v1VvHYZe3CEPJ6Fbx0uhwIfJ+GBZxkVELql3SD4S/suI M/f/B93ZjVfwh1mttnY8ptN0FiigOxqKXstRiksfF9OG646DVr3TU2219PjEQOWD+dHf gK1pFJyxogNUrQs3H5EzEbbEChWQ2MSA5sfxVR2c6hr1s0wC33ZmRsRebQ2JkpLLFyF7 2kh3R0ng6pHy6D3PzcAuRFBFEtpPpB27q1acQnSjI5DjyGq9vxpal5orftmnXFuLYBXF s2aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725296275; x=1725901075; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=bYSuBgXlnjcq/aPJZiHO1I/V5mO0FJARti73eNNCaCc=; b=cXjeP9s2EkwWnGibty3xIlUOWaduVFTP1YS6DSP0G5CX2eDSEcNBHpxxBjWhJVbCGO WeAq+64YHBL1aIpYntbZJZRLuxx7ab82NzLnPppraKnTzxnluAhfwmQClUvlHuyP0knI gzaZCeQAnhAeKEb7uyV27lkjeFA+2BQfXUccl7QBCpWQbcSOLqt/opckKXFbHr/Qc1rT vLaQ2FUXglb9TQeKnDz6cEAymGakha8uxu7iA7yOfYSdyxpF86nAXyzyNW/YS2QLQdMw 4e6uyK6Xmivag/AjElDvg5Rg2P2Zy04Fv8Ovo3ilLizGCkck4j2WR3ErfHIG+9IvpIth 9rAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzTWJgSfKHK3pZkB2HnGkd8GgmH4UWikmWydVIikKcyd2x+E8qE wUBUmurXQLxFlN9eZd3dPYVRp/jzWAnvGgQ3ECDcO9y96d4OlqTrP7VFDBa3K8uHv6QYh9+zQle rAodh0GyYZe+U5mowsLH1tPS1s4M7RQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFnivCZ1Td54j/LVIc0qIxWxpOnbBdW++RMGTn9hv63vX4bkBO54Cw3OPkFqkDAqGDBS8W/7v5h1p0gvvtAI/8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:d06:b0:5c2:6bf7:8531 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c26bf78562mr62199a12.33.1725296274628; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 09:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7487E6AA-A8BE-42A9-9E80-F85C49ABF026@ietf.org> <CAHbuEH72xCnM6_F+A+jP3nPkNY2sHa_zG4Skbhdu40SBgXSdcA@mail.gmail.com> <57DD1871-63C0-4884-8967-25DB8972A29B@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <57DD1871-63C0-4884-8967-25DB8972A29B@icann.org>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:57:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G8=k-_H5HwoFPZ62FUzs4_Zz=4gunq1OYE+mgKFAo2uA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094ed86062125d727"
Message-ID-Hash: UWDMIK2J2WRDGZXEHFHBM2HM2UIO63F3
X-Message-ID-Hash: UWDMIK2J2WRDGZXEHFHBM2HM2UIO63F3
X-MailFrom: tjw.ietf@gmail.com
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
CC: wgchairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
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/VjYLq8HZy4v_UxfgFQDQMJ14OSo>
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 Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 12:52 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:

> 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
>

Paul

I was going to say "I make sure to add the Zulip chat links to the minutes
and I looked and then I realized I only added a link to only one of the
sessions, sigh.

tim