On 31/07/2013 15:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
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
throug
On 7/31/2013 4:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
While that is true, I think it misses the point of the objections to
the sit-and-watch-PowerPointTV.
First, I observe that we already_have_ a great deal of written words:
the drafts. I continue to believe that altogether too much time in WG
meetings
On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> It may be the case in some instances that if
> it's going to be nothing but presentations there may not
> be a need for a working group to meet at all.
+1. If nothing else, when a WG agenda starts to shape up like this, this
should be a big
I have to say that I was very impressed with how the oauth
session went. There was minimal presentation and maximal
discussion, and the discussion was not interrupted until it
started getting circular.
But, I suspect that this is a reflection of the fact that
there's some substantial disagreement
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> It's hard to tell how many of them
>> would be participating if the meeting were more useful, but
>> the very fact that the room contains so many nonparticipants
>> is itself a deterrent to getting work done in the meeting.
>> If nothing
Hi Keith,
On 31/07/2013 18:35, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very
>> diverse languages, written words are usually better
>> understood than speech. It's a fact of life that you can't
>> have a ful
Hi Barry,
Sorry for long meesage,
I will give you a real example which I experienced that includes my request
regarding a WG ietf draft that has no presenter but two people in the WG
that want discuss it in meetings as below real story. I want to confirm my
statement of hidden discuss/information
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
> conversations and side meetings
The hall conversations and side meetings will continue to be immensely
valuable. But working group sessions can, and should, also be v
>> The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
>> conversations and side meetings
>
> 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 discus
There are occasions when presentations are appropriate, but they should be the
exception rather than the rule or default assumption.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for presenting is the
> problem
comments below
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
> > written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact o
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
IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for presenting is the
problem or boring factor. I mentioned before that we need short
presentations 5 minutes, and more discussions.
AB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>
>
I agree with some of your points, thanks, comments below,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>
> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/a-diverse-ietf/
>
> Also, I wanted to let everyone know that tomorrow in the Administrative
> Plenary, Kathleen Moriarty and Suresh Krishnan will be
Donald Eastlake wrote:
> The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
> conversations and side meetings
So that implies to me that we should use our session time extremely
efficiently, always finish sessions early (to facilitate time for ad-hoc
conversations), a
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, Michae
On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
> written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life
> that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group
> of 100 people
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
> written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life
> that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group
>
On 31/07/2013 05:47, Bob Braden wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
>>
>> E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
>> (approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'di
On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>>
>> Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
>>
>> E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
>> (approximately; maybe less). That will force the slid
On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
(approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'discussion
frameworks', rather than 'detailed overview
> From: Keith Moore
Great message. One idea:
> WG meeting sessions aren't scheduled to encourage discussion, but to
> discourage it. At meeting after meeting, in several different areas, I
> see the lion's share of the time devoted to presentations rather than
> discussion.
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> 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
Keith Moore 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 w
25 matches
Mail list logo
