I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in through meeting sessions and discussion lists. So I agree with Keith that meeting sessions have low discussions, and may discourage remote participants to discuss as well.
I think why you feel that side meetings are valuable, is because it has short presenting, each person talks for less than 5 minutes and discussion time is interesting. So you and Keith seem to be having same aim to exclude long presentations of issues. Furthermore, I will add that we need not to only ask questions and discuss with the authors/presenters, we should be discussing to the IETF WG with the meeting. This way the habit will be not boring and ALL will be attracted. AB On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall > conversations and side meetings > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Michael Richardson > <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > > > Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> wrote: > > > But earlier today I realized that the problem isn't just the cost > of attending > > > meetings - it's the value that we get in return for those > meetings. I've been > > > taking notes about how ineffectively we use our meeting time. > Most of what > > > I've observed won't surprise anybody, but here's a summary: > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > > Rooms are set up not to facilitate discussion, but to discourage > it. The > > > lights are dim, the chairs are facing forward rather than other > participants, > > > the projector screen (not the person facilitating a discussion, > even if someone > > > is trying to facilitate a discussion) is the center of attention. > The chairs > > > are set so close together and with so few aisles that it's hard > for most of the > > > attendees to get to the mics. The "microphone discipline" which > was intended > > > to facilitate remote participation ends up making discussion more > difficult for > > > everybody who has paid to be on site. > > > > I think that these physical things are something that we can do some > > experiments about. > > > > > Well, please excuse my candor, but f*ck habit. We can't be > effective > > > engineers if we let bad habits continue to dictate how we work. > > > > I agree. > > > > > For 80% of most WG meetings, the lights should be bright, the > participants > > > should face each other. If there's a person facilitating the > discussion that > > > person should be the center of attention. If we're going to use > microphones, > > > the rooms should be set up to allow everyone in the room to have > easy access to > > > them. We should have several microphones, again facing each > other, so that > > > several people can have a conversation without everyone having to > queue up. > > > > Can we please try this in Vancouver? > > This would work especially well for BOFs. > > Maybe we can start there. > > Chairs will need training as *facilitators* > > > > > And maybe, in addition, we need to provide better places for > people to hang out > > > and work while trying to get an opportunity to interact with > specific people. > > > The terminal rooms are generally placed in out-of-the-way corners, > but the most > > > effective places to interact with people are in the hallways. > > > > I agree. > > > > -- > > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network > architect [ > > ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on > rails [ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > > > > >
