On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
You can go, read the poster and formulate opinions and questions
independently of anyone else, including the author. If there is a time when
the author is supposed to be present, you can then go back and clarify any
issues. You can't establish any consensus this way, but it can be efficient
at resolving issues.
I'm attaching a chart that may be useful in this discussion. Using the
rsync-able directory of all IETF ID's since 1992 (btw, I don't believe the
database before about 1996, but 14 years is still interesting data), I did a
brief scan of the arrival of drafts to the Internet Draft directory. The blue
line shows the arrivals by month; the red bar graph tries (somewhat crudely)
to aggregate drafts-by-IETF-meeting.
I'm envisioning the process and requirements of the poster sessions. In terms
of process, today if I post a -00 draft to a working group, I can generally
get discussion during the coming IETF meeting. What I think this suggests is
that instead I would show a poster at the coming meeting and get working
group discussion the meeting following. I'm not sure I like that implication.
I'm also thinking about the implications of 500-or-so posters. In terms of
simple floor space, if we presume a poster and the conversation in front of
it occupy a 3 meter-by 3 meter (10' X 10') space, we need 4500 square meters
or 50,000 square feet of floor space to park them in. Time-wise, we need to
assume that 1/3-to-1/2 of people who attend an IETF meeting will, instead of
chairing or presenting in sessions, be out standing by their posters - and
not wandering around looking at other posters. The mechanics look a little
daunting.
Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic conference
in which grad students are advertising for a professor that might be
interested in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund their research. This is
an SDO, and internet drafts are what any other SDO calls "contributions" or
"work in progress". I would far rather have people who ant to talk about
something contribute an internet draft on their topic, and talk with other
people about their ideas - whether on working group lists or other places.
For those of us that *do* participate, it seems to mostly work.
Dear Fred;
I think that you are correct in your logistics. However, I understood the
current proposal was to use posters as an alternative to Bar Bofs, which
would be a lot fewer in number. I would not support any plan to (say) double
the IETF's throughput by the use of posters.
Regards
Marshall
<a.csv.pdf>_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf