--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 11:57 -0500 Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and >> wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about >> what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a >> shame. > > I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that > meetings are run counter to this goal. > > I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard > this from the first speaker, "if you haven't read the drafts, > you shouldn't participate here. Therefore I will not have > slides and dive into the details." As this was outside my > area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the > session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous > meeting would give me enough cover. > > Before each speaker in that session, the question "who has > read" was asked, with few hands going up each time. It would > be far more helpful to try to be "inclusive" rather than > "exclusive" towards us tourists. Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said (roughly, although I don't recall "don't participate") those words early in the session. Whether that feeling is correct or not, there are other WGs with the problems that one faced last week. Using the one I have in mind as an example... * The WG is working a topic that, because of the need to interact with the traditional version of the protocol, involves a large number of constraints and very subtle issues. * Despite the fact that there are a large number of documents on the table, documents that explore the issues rather than just making proposals, it is early-stage in its work. * The topic tends to draw flies and an assortment of ogres and trolls, most of the latter groups on the assumption that anyone who can use systems based on a protocol is obviously qualified to comment on the protocol. * A great deal about what is important about the documents that people were asked to confirm that they had read or otherwise keep quiet involved in-depth exploration of the issues and constraints, not (merely (!)) protocol details. Without exposure to that material, someone trying to participate in the discussion would probably lack not only that understanding but even a vocabulary with which to discuss the topic. And the WG was very much in need of the kind of discussion that actually occurred: by experts in the specific area or the areas immediately surrounding it, who were familiar with prior discussions and the documents, and who could focus in on specific issues rather than implicitly asking for tutorials that could easily take up the entire available time. There had also been a decision that the WG would concentrate on seeing if it could develop a particular approach leading to Experimental protocols, so there is little interest at this time in "what if you did something completely different" discussions. The result was one of the better sets of discussions I've seen in a WG meeting in some time, so there won't be any apologies for the strategy. However, at a later stage in the process, broader review, even by people not familiar with the intimate details, will be more appropriate and I trust that WG meetings will be handled differently at that time. If you are referring to a completely different WG, I'd encourage you to see if there are any useful analogies. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf