ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities)

2017-04-18 19:15:12
Which is why BC (thanks!) changed the subject of this sub-thread.

But re. IAOC responsibilities: Q: Is it true that the revenue from IETF
meetings does cross-fund other activities like RFC editor etc.. ?

If the goal is not to create the best meeting for the folks helping in 
producing documents,
but to attract the maximum number of attendees, then we should be clear about 
it.

I would guess 50% of participants are consuming only. These folks are certainly
well served through death by powerpoint rich dog & pony shows (just me guessing 
what
i like myself when i go to a WG where i just want to learn). If we focus on work
instead of education and we loose participants and therefore money... Oh well,
then the optimum IETF meeting structure seems to be difficult to define.

Toerless

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:53:38AM +0200, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
<IAOC hat = "off">
Ps.: and I would like to add that at least in my personal understanding the 
content and format of the WG meetings is under the mandate of the WG chairs, 
the IESG and IETF chair. Same like the IETF meeting agenda is also not set by 
the IAOC. Of course the IAOC could (and I assume would be happy to) include 
questions from the IESG into the usual meeting survey, but I don't think it 
is the IAOC's place to discuss the content or how many Powerpoints are used 
within the WG meeting. IMHO that is for WG chairs and IESG to decide. And 
with these expectations, it is the IAOC task to arrange for an environment 
that is supporting to fulfill the expectations from the WG chairs, IETF and 
the IESG. 



-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:09 AM
To: Toerless Eckert <tte(_at_)cs(_dot_)fau(_dot_)de>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>; Bob Hinden 
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input 
on (potential) meeting cities)

Toerless,

Responding with this thread as it???s not about meeting locations.

On Apr 18, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Stephen Farrell 
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:

Hiya,

On 18/04/17 22:22, Toerless Eckert wrote:
For example, there is a lot of death by powerpoint in meetings that 
pushes off high bandwidth discussions ("oh, we're out of time"). 
AFAIK, most active work on drafts during IETF meeting week happens 
outside of the WG meetings. I think that
a) was not the original plan, and b) i have not seen IAOC sending 
around questionaires what/how to improve the quality of the meetings in 
this respect.

Regarding powerpoint, the problem isn't the use of slides, it the w.g., 
chairs not dealing with presenters who shows up with 20 slides for a 10 
minutes slot, and the chairs not allocating enough time for a real 
discussions.

I think the meetings would be a lot more productive if a w.g. could have a 
meeting at the start of the week, work on the the issues during the week, 
send updates to the mailing list, have email and face to face discussions, 
and then have a second session at the end of the week to get consensus.  
Clearly, impossible to schedule this with our current number of working 
groups, but I think it would make for a more productive week.

Bob

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>