On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is
> it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs
> that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example
> of a chair that does it poorly - I have no idea how to do it
> so it works at all much less works well.
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher and liaison-y sort
of person, and that remote participants are pinged regularly (and
*always* before a change of topic). Decision questions should go
out to the list as soon as possible, if not sooner. Make sure that
questions in the room and other discussion are audible to remote
folk. I'm unconvinced that having video would improve anything
and while something like whiteboarding might be useful in some cases
I don't think it would be used much. [As an aside I hope that the
RFP process doesn't result in a fancy pile of technology that looks
whizzy but doesn't actually improve meetings - I find that the
current stuff works well when the chairs are thinking about remote
participants]
There have been a few sessions where audio wasn't working and there
was nobody in the Jabber room who was in the session and could relay
that information. One particularly badly-run session had the chairs
completely ignoring remote participants during the entire meeting and
then asking for volunteers, explicitly limiting it to people in the
room even though it was longer-term work. (I wrote to the chairs and
ADs after that one and never heard back from anyone).
I really don't think it's that much effort and I don't think it's
disruptive, but I do think it requires of chairs a somewhat different
mental model of a meeting.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf