On Wednesday, February 12, 2014, Dave Cridland
<dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net');>>
wrote:
Sorry, I've not had a chance to read your mail, but perhaps we could
discuss it in the session in London?
I've not had a chance to review your mail either. Would you mind giving a
presentation on it in London? PowerPoint is so much better than just text.
And can you liven it up a bit? Most of the IETF presentations are so dry.
PowerPoint supports colors and animations, you know.
...
Seriously, Randy's point is excellent. Let's stop coddling the folks most
likely to /not/ have useful input and make the meetings worth attending for
the experts we need input from.
I know I haven't always done my homework for every working group meeting
I've attended. I'm more likely to come prepared if I know the meeting will
jump right to points needing discussion, with no time to "catch up" during
the presentations.
Thinking on my fingers...
I know I've had the best of intentions of being prepared, but most of us
have full lives outside the IETF and find ourselves behind at the meeting.
Can we find a way to help this issue, and maybe also help newcomers?
Maybe we could have reading sessions where folks could just sit and read
drafts, with quiet discussion limited to understanding the draft. No ADs or
Chairs required. Document editors would be welcome, but not required. This
could even be done informally in the terminal room, or during breakfast, or
dedicate the first session of the day to this--with an area with
a table set up with a sign for each WG or draft. This time could also be
used by mentors to help newcomers understand drafts and their issues.
Then, later in the day or week, have a to the point WG meeting, possibly
much shorter, but, if not, then the time is spent usefully in discussion of
points of contention.
It's likely that less time would be required overall. This could free up a
significant amount of time for ADs, Chairs, and those that were able to do
their "homework".
Stupid idea, or worth writing a draft?
Chris.
On 12 Feb 2014 07:37, "Randy Bush" <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
maybe the result would be slightly improved if chairs did not call
for presentations at wg meetings, but instead called for items
needing face to face discussion?
I try but it's an uphill struggle. I'm hoping against hope that one
of the things that comes out of the wg chairs training session on
consensus is a better understanding of why this is such a big deal.
we waste immense amounts of time of the literate in a hopeless attempt
to insert clue into the lazy or illiterate.
just say a hard no to "i want to present draft-..." has your draft been
discussed on the mailing list and has shown serious divergence of views
such that facetime is really needed?
randy
--
Chris Elliott
chelliot(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com