Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Mon, 19 October 2020 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 4CC993A08D3; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBW5byPz_br8; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EAF63A08CF; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <058701d6a648$998eb150$ccac13f0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:19:33 +1300
Cc: manycouches@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E56FE404-3922-4BD8-B386-F6DD705389E4@ietf.org>
References: <160288855079.14008.13967692974159638979@ietfa.amsl.com> <30344.1602894208@localhost> <FD995870-E9C6-4099-93AF-253F0A11F56B@tzi.org> <CADaq8jcKK5kUvU3v7+6gEaeqjqxtw-Bii5is_hoq1ugogCoWPg@mail.gmail.com> <20201017193610.GA39170@kduck.mit.edu> <CADaq8je4nFVKkGw3X+Yo53N1xaXrgNRvOw4ZaNA0mT3dsDi-kQ@mail.gmail.com> <31255.1603126883@localhost> <058701d6a648$998eb150$ccac13f0$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/Zg6MKBxyeZxBD8Iu3T2WYYnsdic>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:22:06 -0700
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:19:37 -0000

Adrian

> On 20/10/2020, at 7:49 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> This thread (re-)opens the question of the value of a full virtual meeting.
> 
> There is unquestionable (to me) value in the plenary session, and a few of
> the agenda-slot meetings are widely attended.
> 
> But it seems that the main draw of an in-person meeting is the interactions
> in the corridors and after people have spoken at agenda sessions. Also the
> ad hoc gatherings to advance topics. 
> It seems to me that most/all of this was missing at IETF-108 and is likely
> to be missing at IETF-109.
> 
> So what is left between the packed one-week agenda and a sparse three-month
> schedule of "interims".
> 
> Maybe the only benefit I can see is that rather than having to be out of bed
> every week for a poorly-scheduled interim, I can be out of bed for a whole
> week for the IETF week. I am not sure that is an advantage, especially when
> weighed against agenda clashes (at IETF-108 I tried listening to multiple
> audio streams at once, and it fried my poor brain).
> 
> So I'd like to see a renewed discussion of why we are doing this to
> ourselves.

Just a reminder that we have surveyed the community about this

	https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/survey-planning-possible-online-meetings-responses.pdf

One key question was "If an in-person one-week IETF meeting needs to be cancelled then which of the following options do you prefer?", which elicited the following responses (p20):

- Replace it with a combination of an online meeting with a set agenda and virtual interims				36.15% 	184
- Replace it with an online meeting with a set agenda (format to be decided)						29.47% 	150
- Ask WGs/RGs to schedule virtual interims when and how they want								14.54% 	74
- Ask WGs/RGs to schedule virtual interims following rules about when and how (rules to be decided)	9.82% 	50
- Don't know																			5.11% 	26
- Do nothing and defer until the next in-person meeting											2.95% 	15
- Other (please specify)																	1.96% 	10
 

It might be argued that an online meeting with just a plenary meets the top two results above, but then a further question asks "If an online IETF meeting is scheduled, then how important is it for each of the following to be included?", which elicited the following responses (p26):

(From L-R: Very important, Important, Neutral, Not important, Not at all important, Score (lower score is more important))

- Sessions for existing working groups 		43.66% 38.05% 12.06% 4.99% 1.25% 		1.82
- Sessions for new working groups			39.02% 39.91% 16.19% 2.66% 2.22% 		1.89
- BOFs 								38.12% 36.32% 21.08% 2.24% 2.24% 		1.94
- Sessions for proposed research groups	19.48% 36.15% 34.27% 6.81% 3.29% 		2.38
- Sessions for existing research groups		19.25% 34.51% 36.38% 7.28% 2.58% 		2.39
- Plenary session 						21.81% 28.19% 31.28% 13.88% 4.85% 	2.52
- Side meetings 						14.99% 29.98% 32.08% 13.11% 9.84% 	2.73
- Newcomers’ events					13.00% 28.25% 34.00% 12.00% 12.75% 	2.83
- Technical tutorials 					11.14% 20.54% 40.35% 17.33% 10.64%	2.96
- HotRFC								9.49% 19.49% 41.79% 15.64% 13.59% 	3.04
- Office hours							5.34% 22.90% 39.95% 20.10% 11.70%		3.10
- Hackathon 							6.73% 20.20% 40.65% 19.70% 12.72% 	3.11
- Codesprint 							3.20% 12.00% 48.27% 20.27% 16.27%		3.34
- Host Speaker Series 					5.85% 15.78% 35.11% 21.12% 22.14%		3.38
- Systers Networking 					4.68% 10.23% 47.95% 15.20% 21.93%		3.39
- Social event 							4.99% 8.48% 23.44% 20.95% 42.14%		3.87

Of course the sessions for existing working groups are the bulk of the sessions.

Jay


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org