On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> You can go, read the poster and formulate opinions and questions >> independently of anyone else, including the author. If there is a time when >> the author is supposed to be present, you can then go back and clarify any >> issues. You can't establish any consensus this way, but it can be efficient >> at resolving issues. > > I'm attaching a chart that may be useful in this discussion. Using the > rsync-able directory of all IETF ID's since 1992 (btw, I don't believe the > database before about 1996, but 14 years is still interesting data), I did a > brief scan of the arrival of drafts to the Internet Draft directory. The blue > line shows the arrivals by month; the red bar graph tries (somewhat crudely) > to aggregate drafts-by-IETF-meeting. > > I'm envisioning the process and requirements of the poster sessions. In terms > of process, today if I post a -00 draft to a working group, I can generally > get discussion during the coming IETF meeting. What I think this suggests is > that instead I would show a poster at the coming meeting and get working > group discussion the meeting following. I'm not sure I like that implication. > > I'm also thinking about the implications of 500-or-so posters. In terms of > simple floor space, if we presume a poster and the conversation in front of > it occupy a 3 meter-by 3 meter (10' X 10') space, we need 4500 square meters > or 50,000 square feet of floor space to park them in. Time-wise, we need to > assume that 1/3-to-1/2 of people who attend an IETF meeting will, instead of > chairing or presenting in sessions, be out standing by their posters - and > not wandering around looking at other posters. The mechanics look a little > daunting. > > Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic conference > in which grad students are advertising for a professor that might be > interested in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund their research. This is > an SDO, and internet drafts are what any other SDO calls "contributions" or > "work in progress". I would far rather have people who ant to talk about > something contribute an internet draft on their topic, and talk with other > people about their ideas - whether on working group lists or other places. > For those of us that *do* participate, it seems to mostly work.
Dear Fred; I think that you are correct in your logistics. However, I understood the current proposal was to use posters as an alternative to Bar Bofs, which would be a lot fewer in number. I would not support any plan to (say) double the IETF's throughput by the use of posters. Regards Marshall > > <a.csv.pdf>_______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
