Re: WG meeting structure

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 2) Queue management becomes a different problem, which is harder for the
    > chair.  People raise hands to get put into a "I want to talk on the
    > subject queue", and when that list becomes long it's a real pain.  We
    > tend to have long lines at mics at the IETF, so the chairs may have
    > their work cut out for them.  If you don't do queues and do free-form
    > discussion, then mic monopolization becomes a serious problem, or some
    > people with valid inputs simply never get to express their thoughts
    > because its hard to be heard in a group of shouting people.  I'm
    > constantly concerned that without management, we only hear from
    > extroverts.  IE, "fair" becomes a real issue if it's not a small group.

It does require active management, and this requires some training and
experience.
There was a very good ksk-rollover side-meeting with two or three mics in
Bangkok with Paul Hoffmann doing excellent queue management.

Getting input from introverts requires the chair to actively ask them.
I regularly wonder if having a "+1" button in front of everyone would help.

    > 3) Serialization itself isn't an issue *if* people are responding to
    > previous people's comments in an orderly fashion (more in a sec).  I
    > have seen many productive mic lines where 2-3 people resolve an issue
    > all standing at the mic, with a longer line behind them.  Which brings
    > me to:

Yes... the chair has to be willing to allow and encourage this.
It helps if people not at the front of the line have some way to say, "I have
a comment on the current topic", and for people who have multiple comments to
be able to make their first comment, and then do cooperative multi-tasking,
rather than having their do pre-emptive multitasking on them.

    > 4) One counter idea is to have rooms with two microphones (like many
    > have now, but run into issues with #2 above), but mandate that we use
    > them in the way we have in the past at plenaries: one mic is for
    > introducing new ideas, and the second is for responding to that
    > comment/issue.  Then you resolve some of the issues with not being able
    > to rapidly close sub-ideas with "discussion" style conversations that at
    > least still promotes fairness (smaller queues on a single topic).

I didn't remember that we do sometimes (always?) do this at plenaries.
I think that it is a really good idea.  To make it work best, people have to
be able to reach the mic lines better, which goes to my request to put just
fewer chairs in the room, spread them out way better.

{why do we accumulate people in the CC who are on the list?  Removing people
From the CC who are on the list might be an enhancement we could do to mailman}

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