On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
wrote:
Abdussalam could usefully clarify whether he means "limit the presentation
time
of an I-D" or "limit the time spent on an I-D".
But in either case, I think that I would prefer to see the opposite to such
limitations. I would like to see technical topics that the WG needs to discuss
receive plenty of agenda time (and that to include as much presentation time
as
is needed to seed the discussion and explain the authors' and others'
positions
on a topic), while I would prefer to avoid presentations of "this is the
status
of my draft" and "this is what my draft says" which can be mugged up in
advance
by reading the I-Ds.
In fact, I am increasingly weary of catalogues of 5 minute presentations (to
the
point of wondering whether to fire chairs for this - RTG Area chairs take
note!
:-) I know it is "important" to be on an agenda if you are going to travel to
an
IETF meeting. I know it is "important" to show that you are making a
contribution to the WG. But we have to get over it!
Adrian,
I can't speak to the "important to be on the agenda" issue, but I will say
this:
F2f time is too valuable to be spent on issues that could have been brought up
and (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list, as well as presentations that
just serve to list "so I changed these 42 things since last meeting" summaries.
They actually are extremely un-productive (although I do get a lot of email
processed when sitting through one of those) ....especially since RFCDIFF is
both more precise, and in colour ;)
I'd probably prefer that all that could be (attempted) resolved on the
mailing-list should be (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list - and, only if
that fails is agenda-time for the f2f sessions warranted - and on issues, not
on "documents".
Useful use of f2f time is also "presenting brand new work" - but only once - to
gain traction and such in order to take it onto the list.
That said, IETF meetings do punctuate and foster some "sprints to finish things
before a deadline", and so an overview of status probably is appreciated. I
believe that this (in some WGs) is very well done by the WG chairs in their "WG
Status" slot - but, even better, actually announced on the list in advance (on
that note, I want to tip my hat to the ROLL WG chairs here: Ines and Michael
have whipped their WG to submitting slides already, constructed a complete deck
for the whole meeting, and prepared a handful or so of slides listing the
"status": active documents, open issues, related, for the beginning - close to
perfect organisation ...).
One other thing that I occasionally find useful to spend F2F time on:
summarising out-of-band discussions such as what often happens through IESG
reviews, especially if managing to get the AD in question to show up and argue
her/his points.
Best,
Thomas
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
Sent: 24 February 2014 14:14
To: l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk;
abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and
face2face discussions
On 2/23/2014 10:49 PM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
How many IETF meetings have you attended, and what experience do you base
this recommendation on?
...
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun
[abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 24 February 2014 03:43
To: ietf
Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and
face2face
discussions
...
I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present per WG
draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy).
I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and even if it
weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of response. It doesn't
matter what the background is of the person asking the question.
What matters is whether a rigid rule limiting time per topic is helpful.
I think it isn't. Some topics require more. Some require less.
The usual focus in IETF discussions about meeting management is,
instead, about /how/ time is used, rather than how much of it, notably
pressing to avoid tutorial or reportorial content, instead focusing on
discussion of pending items, such as those creating an impasse.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net