Re: Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 02 September 2024 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.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 3A8C0C14F70D; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 r90b3PvMEHtX; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (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 74CEDC14F712; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5becfd14353so4290208a12.1; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1725295361; x=1725900161; 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=5VhWxDq5HXfVmknMMl0dsBHbHN8vLeoHhBI+2zz2jds=; b=YpTx4fs1NdSLUapEBfziamBl+sOefk2R43b45NXlX4BV16d1o3zKyAD0n8CGVi24ja MULBqRGNDD8Ksg35QIlWc0n82PWO+QwF87cU81kX1uVOtZeFFbl9wCRTKY5xoYR8zl36 31ZOJmMBfF3lCMBiEKKydC5vHeH8yBcup3nSEmSGbIrqC5AfsanBeUJzsjepKprd30PH yXlB/1KWBIsXAKctQw0SZQor/ObFzmqWRjylKr0VMZOmzf2toS7VBdp/5RHLyZ2Me5Im lgcZw/uma3Eiwv0P4gPNq8eUHI46GHzvvtcjnn/xpP8jImjR6vmY4DrIK19kjzH/UuNA Js8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725295361; x=1725900161; 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=5VhWxDq5HXfVmknMMl0dsBHbHN8vLeoHhBI+2zz2jds=; b=c+q2l+TZG7c4pucsXmnI25XXLHbq1MA6LAGxVCJ3x8t/srN+TMxmREsAKPXU2TwsUh vLXdbRgqg+XDUrLgBjZvhGwbOE6zagTQvRRig1MZacGu6BmQf0+1Le4KkuGbfKGaKi4f dFpmAhEtyiazhtcBthRbMMtS4f44U67M6DlcHyKvMR/bn1HH1KZew1AFH6iF5Cawu80f ezG8/iptYQPE3ZdXrD5kD8MWJJ981XxnacFqPmq0V3ECqbup4b3JoHyxrU4+eaxQ/6z/ pD2AEpTpegJSdrlcDR1ySAGJy4lslVx+y/d1LSM0icadevu1V87WEFBmzK8uSHwHF5iM Sc0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyI0Y8/zIkvGtGMsOqC+H/IZHfbEx40S4Ns5HofDqO58gm9t6mZ PSWglIx6oLYcsSYhTPCFtMpJs6esSCLpLNJTu+JhibPSuJztFNMR3aXvro114q+M8Rz7CHvPKhA 7rjZXZq+i9J3Kh2XesN3GOx0dPsmd2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGdgCh04ErLvn3xPsJId8obnZOIhSZmofmMyXiQeZYfLt74S2w0arOyKUKHJw7ja41T2MiGPRax5LokQvhukas=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1d49:b0:5c2:4dcc:b911 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c24dccbb0fmr3338753a12.26.1725295360792; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 09:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7487E6AA-A8BE-42A9-9E80-F85C49ABF026@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7487E6AA-A8BE-42A9-9E80-F85C49ABF026@ietf.org>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:42:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH72xCnM6_F+A+jP3nPkNY2sHa_zG4Skbhdu40SBgXSdcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback from IETF 120 Vancouver post-meeting survey
To: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ce2ae062125a19f"
Message-ID-Hash: 3PZ5REMVA2STOBKUJQ7NPCUBK7WERBXV
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3PZ5REMVA2STOBKUJQ7NPCUBK7WERBXV
X-MailFrom: kathleen.moriarty.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/W2WydOIZfgr_bbGBmVvEVL4xwvI>
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>

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.

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 12:12 PM Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> There were a number of aspects to the feedback in the post-IETF 120
> meeting survey that are worth highlighting and updating you on.
>
> 1.  Comments that the in-session chat is a distraction. This is one we
> will monitor and possibly ask specific questions about in the next
> post-meeting survey.  There was a suggestion of explicit pauses in sessions
> to allow people, particularly presenters, to catch up with the chat but I
> have no idea how practical that is.
>
> 2.  Comments about managing slides and presentations, that we will pass on
> to Meetecho.
>
> 3.  Comments about the use of screen space in rooms and how that can be
> improved.  The meetings operations team are reviewing this and we’ll see
> what improvements we can make.
>
> As a reminder, the survey dashboard is at [1] and the last question, Q27,
> has the free form comments.
>
> cheers
> Jay
>
>
> [1]
> https://ietf.co1.qualtrics.com/results/public/aWV0Zi1VUl8zT3laRG9JQWxidUkxZ0otNjZjMzQwNWI4ZjhlYTQwMDA4Nzg5MjNi#/pages/Page_1fe9399e-cacb-4063-af49-ee1340c57993
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> exec-director@ietf.org
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen