Re: 2 hour meetings

At 15:00 -0500 3/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:

> Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous
> feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said
> (roughly, although I don't recall "don't participate") those
> words early in the session.  Whether that feeling is correct or
> not, there are other WGs with the problems that one faced last
> week.
Well, I will neither confirm nor deny because I don't raise specific 
examples as an accusation in public, but only to server as a data 
point.  (If the data is inaccurate, then that ought to be dealt with 
publicly.)
Perhaps the words "don't participate" weren't said or insinuated, but 
I do recall hearing something to the extent that caused me to feel 
unwelcome (mentally) and I opened my laptop to read email in protest.
> Using the one I have in mind as an example...
>         * The topic tends to draw flies and an assortment of
>         ogres and trolls, most of the latter groups on the
>         assumption that anyone who can use systems based on a
>         protocol is obviously qualified to comment on the
>         protocol.
In this case I consider myself a fly.  I don't have the heft to be an 
ogre on the topic, and I'm disciplined enough not to post on the 
topic.
> And the WG was very much in need of the kind of discussion that
> actually occurred:  by experts in the specific area or the areas
> immediately surrounding it, who were familiar with prior
> discussions and the documents, and who could focus in on
> specific issues rather than implicitly asking for tutorials that
> could easily take up the entire available time.  There had also
> been a decision that the WG would concentrate on seeing if it
> could develop a particular approach leading to Experimental
> protocols, so there is little interest at this time in "what if
> you did something completely different" discussions.  The result
> was one of the better sets of discussions I've seen in a WG
> meeting in some time, so there won't be any apologies for the
> strategy.
If it's the case that this is what the WG needed, then there isn't 
anything to fix or anyone to reprimand.  "In that case."
But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the mass 
gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review.  The 
discussion in this case may have been needed by the core members of 
the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the opportunity cost of 
interacting with a wider circle of people.  I.e., the room and time 
slot (which was changed to avoid a conflict) could have been put to 
more general use - and use an interim meeting or mail thread for the 
focused discussion.
Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but back 
to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide cross-area 
review.  If a WG accidently makes progress at the time, well, that 
has to be brought back "to the list" anyway.
> regards,
I do want to make one other point, and this is reflective of the 
particular meeting...not having visual materials at all can be a 
problem just when considering the bridging of English dialects and 
accents.  "Visual material" need not be slide-ware, I've been in 
meetings where an open file in VI was used to record ideas, a la a 
white board.
PS - To give an example of what I consider a working dynamic:

A few IETF's ago (just to separate the example from current day), I 
was working on a group document in need of interaction of about 5-10 
core addicts.  We got a separate room, closed it (invite only), 
hammered out details for a few hours on a Tuesday of the IETF. 
(I.e., we didn't burden the IETF with this meeting.)  At the general 
session of the WG, Wednesday or Thursday, I went up and presented the 
"suggestions" of the closed room to the general audience.  Once 2 or 
3 of the issues hit the light of day, they were soundly rejected, 
others were accepted - all of this eventually caught on the mailing 
list.  All the issues/recommendations of the addicts were up on 
slides - to show the precise nature of the wording of each.
Note that the "closed" nature of the meeting did not mean any closed 
door decisions, negotiations, nor deliberations.  Anything/everything 
drained from the room was put before the open assembly.  The closed 
nature meant that we just dropped all the formalities and didn't 
worry about keeping to a time limit on anything.
What I thought was interesting was that the general audience 
participation was far more diversified than I would have thought.  As 
in - what did it mean to "ban" things in the protocol, a question the 
addicts took for granted.  We did benefit from cross-area review then 
while also showing marked progress during the week.  BTW, that was 
the last time the document was discussed in an open session before 
going to the IESG, i.e., it was just what was needed.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain...

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf