Once upon a time Bob Braden would alternate WG sessions, one "open" and then one only for people who were actually contributing.
On Jul 31, 2010 7:00 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]> wrote: > At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote: > >>The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room >>and slides and humans sitting in c... Double bingo. The number of WG sessions (which are ostensibly scheduled for the purpose of "working") in which folks have not read the drafts or otherwise prepared themselves to actively contribute is also distressingly high. Perhaps we all simply have too much work to do, or perhaps many drafts are written in such a way that folks can't easily grok the problem and its proposed solution. Regarding the latter, one of the WGs I advise held a small "tutorial" session in a side room on Friday morning and that turned out to be quite useful because it forced some of the key contributors (in this case the chairs) to clearly explain the core concepts behind the protocol under development within the WG, and I think that effort will pay off in the form of a much clearer and more readable specification. Peter _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.or...
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
