ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Plenaries at IETF 53

2002-01-17 12:50:04

Since you asked for opinions...
 
* Should we continue with the two-plenary model?  Should we do
so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or
occasional schedule?

Yes, I think we should continue with the two-plenary model for at least a
couple more IETF meetings.  If we find that the discussion at both plenaries
is short enough such that they could have been done together without making a
single plenary too long, we can switch back.  Besides the additional time for
discussion, having separate plenaries did seem (to me) to add focus.

An alternative might be to decide for each IETF meeting based on whether there
are any "hot topics" to be focused on and discussed at either plenary.  When
there are, have two plenaries.  When there are not, have one.  The problem I
see with this is that the decision probably has to be made pretty far in
advance of the meeting.  (Maybe we could always plan for two and then make a
last week decision as to whether or not to actually use the second plenary
time slot.) 

* If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on
Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more
radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at
this point).

How radical is radical?  I always plan to be at the IETF meeting for the whole
week so I will attend wherever they end up.  Because I am usually exhausted by
the end of the week, I would prefer Tuesday over Thursday.  (Sunday night
might also be a good time for architectural discussion since everyone is fresh
and will be "loosened up" after the reception.)  The two options I would
definitely NOT want to see are any time on Friday or any time that conflicts
with working group meetings.

* Do you have major architectural themes that should be
addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?

I would like hear more about the issues related to the internationalization of
the DNS and issues related to routing table growth.  There have been some
presentations on these topics in the past but I would like to see some
architectural discussion about where these issues stand now.

* And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it
better to let people explain their views at whatever length that
takes?

Microphone time should definitely be controlled.  Far too many people feel
compelled to spend too much time talking without adding new content to the
discussion.  (This problem is worse in some working group meetings.  I think
some people just like to hear the sound of their own voices.)  And, I like
(what I perceive to be) the existing system.  Time is not limited when a
person really is adding comment or is getting a new topic of discussion
going.  Time starts being limited when a discussion has gone on for awhile and
no new content is being added and/or it starts getting very late into the
evening.  (If any change is made, I would like to see more limits, not less.)

***

Related to the topic of plenary time...  Since the main purpose of the plenary
sessions is the open discussion, I would like to see less time spent on
presentations that are not intended to directly relate to an anticipated
discussion at the plenary.  Time spent on the "standard" reports is already
well managed.  And, it seems to me, based on my experience at the last two
IETF meetings, that steps are already being taken to cut down on the time
spent on the other presentations.  I would like to see this trend continue. 
(For myself, I would be happy if we jumped right into discussion after just
some brief introductory remarks.  But, I am not actually advocating going that
far since sometimes the presentations are very educational.)


John



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>