On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:55:40PM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
That seating change would go hand-in-hand with another proposed change,
namely, elimination of 10-minute "here's what's changed from -0x to
-0x+1" talks with no useful purpose. Have the WG decide before a meeting
which are the top issues to work through at the meeting, each issue gets
30 minutes for discussion, i.e., you get 2-5 issues per session depending
on the slot length.
FWIW, we aimed to do this in DNSEXT in SE, going so far as to
eliminate the slot for "WG status" reports. We sent an update to our
mailing list before the meeting, and solicited discussion in the
meeting (but got none). The result was that 15 minutes that in the
past had been devoted to administrivia was freed up for substantive
discussion.
I think Chairs could help greatly just by directing presenters not to
outline changes between versions unless there is actually something
still controversial about the change. It's all supposed to be
confirmed on the mailing list anyway. Apart from not boring the
people who actually came prepared to work (since they'll already know
about the differences), this strategy could also serve to shorten the
required time for meetings, which might then reduce the number of
slots needed, which would possibly reduce some of the scheduling
trouble. I look forward to the future day when there is an experiment
to shorten the Friday schedule, ending sessions at lunch time.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf