RE: 2 hour meetings
What we do in lemonade is both. We schedule two 2-hour meetings. The first is for a review of what work is going on, what issues we are facing, and broad approaches to solving them. The second is a high-bandwidth working group session, much like the dreaded interim. Note that we have also had much success with well-advertised interim meetings with lots of jabber and audio and video conferencing. There is no way one can get serious work done at the IETF meeting in just 2 hours, unless your work group is in the corner of the world and only 20 people show up to the meeting anyway. If we say the IETF meeting is only for cross-area review, I think participation would drop precipitously. Then again, that would solve the venue problem... -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:21 AM To: Edward Lewis Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: 2 hour meetings --On Monday, 27 March, 2006 09:31 -0500 Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the > mass gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review. Ok, we disagree about the believe that cross-area review is the only reason for holding such meetings and hence disagree about... > Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but > back to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide > cross-area review. If a WG accidentally makes progress at the > time, well, that has to be brought back "to the list" anyway. > The discussion in this case may have been needed by the core > members of the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the > opportunity cost of interacting with a wider circle of people. > I.e., the room and time slot (which was changed to avoid a > conflict) could have been put to more general use - and use an > interim meeting or mail thread for the focused discussion. Sorry, but sometimes face to face meetings serve the very important role of permitting discussion and even confrontation of issues. Those are things that, often, can't be done effectively or efficiently on mailing lists. Such discussions can also bring in a community of experts in the general area who have not paid in-depth attention to the WG's subject matter -- a result that is at least as important, if not more so, than cross-area review. So I believe that such meeting time is often well-spent. YMMD, of course. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
--On Monday, 27 March, 2006 09:31 -0500 Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the > mass gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review. Ok, we disagree about the believe that cross-area review is the only reason for holding such meetings and hence disagree about... > Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but > back to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide > cross-area review. If a WG accidentally makes progress at the > time, well, that has to be brought back "to the list" anyway. > The discussion in this case may have been needed by the core > members of the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the > opportunity cost of interacting with a wider circle of people. > I.e., the room and time slot (which was changed to avoid a > conflict) could have been put to more general use - and use an > interim meeting or mail thread for the focused discussion. Sorry, but sometimes face to face meetings serve the very important role of permitting discussion and even confrontation of issues. Those are things that, often, can't be done effectively or efficiently on mailing lists. Such discussions can also bring in a community of experts in the general area who have not paid in-depth attention to the WG's subject matter -- a result that is at least as important, if not more so, than cross-area review. So I believe that such meeting time is often well-spent. YMMD, of course. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
At 15:00 -0500 3/25/06, John C Klensin wrote: 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. Well, I will neither confirm nor deny because I don't raise specific examples as an accusation in public, but only to server as a data point. (If the data is inaccurate, then that ought to be dealt with publicly.) Perhaps the words "don't participate" weren't said or insinuated, but I do recall hearing something to the extent that caused me to feel unwelcome (mentally) and I opened my laptop to read email in protest. Using the one I have in mind as an example... * 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. In this case I consider myself a fly. I don't have the heft to be an ogre on the topic, and I'm disciplined enough not to post on 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. If it's the case that this is what the WG needed, then there isn't anything to fix or anyone to reprimand. "In that case." But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the mass gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review. The discussion in this case may have been needed by the core members of the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the opportunity cost of interacting with a wider circle of people. I.e., the room and time slot (which was changed to avoid a conflict) could have been put to more general use - and use an interim meeting or mail thread for the focused discussion. Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but back to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide cross-area review. If a WG accidently makes progress at the time, well, that has to be brought back "to the list" anyway. regards, I do want to make one other point, and this is reflective of the particular meeting...not having visual materials at all can be a problem just when considering the bridging of English dialects and accents. "Visual material" need not be slide-ware, I've been in meetings where an open file in VI was used to record ideas, a la a white board. PS - To give an example of what I consider a working dynamic: A few IETF's ago (just to separate the example from current day), I was working on a group document in need of interaction of about 5-10 core addicts. We got a separate room, closed it (invite only), hammered out details for a few hours on a Tuesday of the IETF. (I.e., we didn't burden the IETF with this meeting.) At the general session of the WG, Wednesday or Thursday, I went up and presented the "suggestions" of the closed room to the general audience. Once 2 or 3 of the issues hit the light of day, they were soundly rejected, others were accepted - all of this eventually caught on the mailing list. All the issues/recommendations of the addicts were up on slides - to show the precise nature of the wording of each. Note that the "closed" nature of the meeting did not mean any closed door decisions, negotiations, nor deliberations. Anything/everything drained from the room was put before the open assembly. The closed nature meant that we just dropped all the formalities and didn't worry about keeping to a time limit on anything. What I thought was interesting was that the general audience participation was far more diversified than I would have thought. As in - what did it mean to "ban" things in the protocol, a question the addicts took for granted. We did benefit from cross-area review then while also showing marked progress during the week. BTW, that was the last time the document was discussed in an open session before going to the IESG, i.e., it was just what was needed. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-5
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any "decisions" taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen to attend a particular jabber session or teleconference have undue influence. So, it would be OK for a WG chair to write to the WG "On yesterday's jabber session, there was a strong consensus to pick solution A instead of B. The arguments are summarized below and the full jabber log is at X. Please send mail by if you disagree with this consensus." It would not be OK to write "On yesterday's jabber session we decided to pick solution A." Yep, that's exactly what I had in mind -- a proxy for actual f2f meetings to hopefully cut down on the thashing about on the list itself as people are just trying to understand one another. Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
--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
Re: 2 hour meetings
I agree that having presentations which review all the detailed context is not helpful. One slide reminding folks of context can be very helpful even for folks who have been reading and following all the drafts. At the same time, I have always found it very helpful that different working groups are meeting at the same time, and that I can attend a number of different things. I typically follow activities in 2 or 3 (sometimes even 4) different areas. And I do benefit from being there for the face-to-face discussion of issues (at least when the working group works properly.) Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 12:56 PM 3/25/2006, Andy Bierman wrote: Edward Lewis 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. If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must have read all the drafts." Temper, not "remove." Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. IMO, the purpose of a Working Group meeting is to gather people together to work. If 40 out of 45 people come to the meeting totally unprepared to work on the stated agenda, then don't be surprised if you don't get any work done. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware. If the purpose of all our face to face meetings is to foster cross-area review and not for WGs to get any work done, then I guess this is not a problem. IMO, 1 out of 3 of these non-work-oriented meetings would be plenty, and 3 out of 3 is clearly harming productivity. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
At 9:56 -0800 3/25/06, Andy Bierman wrote: Edward Lewis wrote: Temper, not "remove." Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware. "Taking a few moments to set up the problem" doesn't mean "explain the entire draft." In many cases, one a few sections of a draft need to be discussed face-to-face. Even for the regular attendees, sometimes a restating of the problem is beneficial, if just to set the context. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Edward Lewis 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. If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must have read all the drafts." Temper, not "remove." Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. IMO, the purpose of a Working Group meeting is to gather people together to work. If 40 out of 45 people come to the meeting totally unprepared to work on the stated agenda, then don't be surprised if you don't get any work done. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware. If the purpose of all our face to face meetings is to foster cross-area review and not for WGs to get any work done, then I guess this is not a problem. IMO, 1 out of 3 of these non-work-oriented meetings would be plenty, and 3 out of 3 is clearly harming productivity. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject. I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't afford to block out an entire week because they don't know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be. (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-) Andy, you've heard _this_ before, I'm sure: the reason we do IETF weeks with many WGs in one place is to foster cross-fertilization, and to strongly encourage people to become aware of work in other WGs and other Areas that may impact their own topic. There are very few cases of WGs that can safely work in isolation from the rest of the IETF. We're all busy, but missing out on what's happening elsewhere is a good recipe for getting unpleasant late surprises when a draft finally gets a cross-area review. 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 understand that is a goal of IETF participation for some people. IMO, the people who can help the most on development of a particular protocol are not doing that. The current solution is for progress-conscious WGs to hold interim meetings, which seem to be discouraged, and certainly increase travel cost for most to participate. I do not envision a WG Interim IETF to be a regular IETF, except people read email all day in 1 WG instead of 5. Cross-area review is a reactive process. A cross-area interim design meeting is a proactive process, that encourages better design reuse, consistency, and robustness. I think some joint-WG interims, intra-area planned project development meetings, inter-area interims are important. The IESG would need to prioritize the meeting slot usage as always. It would be awesome if the key people to answer an unexpected question that comes up in an interim just happen to be in the building for a different interim. We would get much more cross-area review in the design phase, where it does the most good. We could have every 3rd or 4th IETF be work-focused instead of cross-review focused. We could try it once. Or we could do nothing and just accept the slow pace of progress, and the cost of WG interim meetings. Brian Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any "decisions" taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen to attend a particular jabber session or teleconference have undue influence. So, it would be OK for a WG chair to write to the WG "On yesterday's jabber session, there was a strong consensus to pick solution A instead of B. The arguments are summarized below and the full jabber log is at X. Please send mail by if you disagree with this consensus." It would not be OK to write "On yesterday's jabber session we decided to pick solution A." Brian Stig Venaas wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take some specific issue to jabber. AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them. Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should also be used for interim wg meetings of course. Stig Regards Marshall - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From:Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
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. If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must have read all the drafts." Temper, not "remove." Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Dear Stig; On Mar 25, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take some specific issue to jabber. That's cool, as long as some way is developed to cross reference email and jabber discussions. I am sure that many of you have had the experience of having one topic posted to multiple lists, with divergent conversations developing, with some, but not all, cross posts, and some, but not total, overlap of participants. Now imagine that being done with two (or more) mail lists and two (or more) jabber chats, all going at the same time. While it might be possible to follow this in real time (at least, if you have nothing else to do), it would be a lot of work to reconstruct such a conversation after the fact presently. This would put a severe disadvantage to those in different time zones and anyone else who could not follow things in real time. I know that commercial software exists to do all of this (I have found Elluminate impressive in this regard, and it's very cross platform, being written in Java), but whether it's done commercially or in open source, I think that it's something that we need to think about. Regards Marshall AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them. Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should also be used for interim wg meetings of course. Stig Regards Marshall - original message - Subject: Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From:Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig --- - ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Hello; > > On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and >> use them for more dynamic discussions. >> John >> > > Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, > Monday - Friday) or > permanently ? My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take some specific issue to jabber. AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them. Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should also be used for interim wg meetings of course. Stig > Regards > Marshall > > > >> - original message - >> Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) >> From:Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm >> >> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>>> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>>> Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up >>>> with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) >>>> >>>> What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID >>>> cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim >>>> meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to >>>> help interim meetings run more >>>> effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs >>>> might then run more interim virtual meetings and help >>>> distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. >>> >>> You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? >>> >>> VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. >> >> Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient >> than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to >> discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive >> discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, >> >> I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of >> specific issues is a great idea. >> >> Stig >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> ___ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Hello; On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time, Monday - Friday) or permanently ? Regards Marshall - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From: Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig - --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject. I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't afford to block out an entire week because they don't know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be. (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-) Andy, you've heard _this_ before, I'm sure: the reason we do IETF weeks with many WGs in one place is to foster cross-fertilization, and to strongly encourage people to become aware of work in other WGs and other Areas that may impact their own topic. There are very few cases of WGs that can safely work in isolation from the rest of the IETF. We're all busy, but missing out on what's happening elsewhere is a good recipe for getting unpleasant late surprises when a draft finally gets a cross-area review. 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. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Stig Venaas wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, Agreed. It is impossible to catch up voice-based communication again if you miss it once. In addition to this, jabber-based chats makes me - non native English speaker (actually listener in most of time) - verify whether I am following up the discussion or not. Thanks to kind jabber scribers (surely including Stig) of WG meetings that I have attended so far. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them for more dynamic discussions. John - original message - Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings) From: Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up >> with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) >> >> What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID >> cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim >> meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to >> help interim meetings run more >> effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs >> might then run more interim virtual meetings and help >> distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. > > You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? > > VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
Hello; On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Scott W Brim wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote: I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm generally used to the text chat thing, the lag, etc. The audio lag is more unnerving, in the cases where the Jabber scribe is helpfully typing in what people are going to say before they say it. Many thanks to all the jabber scribes in those meetings I virtually attended, and, just as important, thanks to those physically present who also monitored and used the Jabber rooms, and thus made me feel somewhat like an attendee (albeit in the cheap seats) rather than a "not present". I'm somewhat hoping that the use of the Jabber server outside the meetings might be able to take off as a method for more high-bandwidth discussion, paradoxically leaving more time in the "real" meetings for the kind of presentations that Keith hates, but this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and areas. I love what you can do in text-based systems and support the idea of having ongoing issue-specific discussions available. In text-based environments, input takes a little time, but everyone can speak at once so progress can be rapid (if facilitated well when needed). However, jabber is relatively primitive. I don't need video or audio but I would like to be able to collaborate on a figure with you, highlight text I'm "talking" about, that sort of thing. One thing you can do with timed text and an associated audio (or video) recording is to cross link them, which gives you the ability to do easy audio searches (by searching on the text, then using the cross link to go to the same point in the audio). For example, the U Wisconsin DATN system does this with the closed captioning for their multicast video http://datn.wisc.edu/about/ I wonder if the DATN software could be adopted to do this for the MP3s and the jabber logs. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote: > I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation > generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage > of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm > generally used to the text chat thing, the lag, etc. The audio lag is > more unnerving, in the cases where the Jabber scribe is helpfully > typing in what people are going to say before they say it. > > Many thanks to all the jabber scribes in those meetings I virtually > attended, and, just as important, thanks to those physically present > who also monitored and used the Jabber rooms, and thus made me feel > somewhat like an attendee (albeit in the cheap seats) rather than a > "not present". > > I'm somewhat hoping that the use of the Jabber server outside the > meetings might be able to take off as a method for more > high-bandwidth discussion, paradoxically leaving more time in the > "real" meetings for the kind of presentations that Keith hates, but > this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and > areas. I love what you can do in text-based systems and support the idea of having ongoing issue-specific discussions available. In text-based environments, input takes a little time, but everyone can speak at once so progress can be rapid (if facilitated well when needed). However, jabber is relatively primitive. I don't need video or audio but I would like to be able to collaborate on a figure with you, highlight text I'm "talking" about, that sort of thing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > > You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? > > > > VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. > > Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an > open interim meeting you need to determine which systems will > work for maybe 50 virtual attendees and not devolve to chaos :) I have two teleconferences a week that both have 50+ participants, one regualrly has 75+. I doubt particpation would be anywhere near as high for the IETF groups I participate in smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:10:47PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient > > than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to > > discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive > > discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, > > > > I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of > > specific issues is a great idea. > > I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. And in my mind, that > brings up a related question: > > Can anyone affirmatively state whether rooms.jabber.ietf.org will remain > up between meetings? If the plan is to take it down, I would lobby for > re-consideration... I believe they are, as logs from the rooms are on the web site (or were last time I looked :) So you get auto archives. -- Tim/::1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient > than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to > discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive > discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, > > I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of > specific issues is a great idea. I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. And in my mind, that brings up a related question: Can anyone affirmatively state whether rooms.jabber.ietf.org will remain up between meetings? If the plan is to take it down, I would lobby for re-consideration... -Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up >> with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) >> >> What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID >> cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim >> meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to >> help interim meetings run more >> effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs >> might then run more interim virtual meetings and help >> distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. > > You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? > > VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers, I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of specific issues is a great idea. Stig > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? > > VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim meeting you need to determine which systems will work for maybe 50 virtual attendees and not devolve to chaos :) -- Tim/::1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up > with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) > > What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID > cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim > meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to > help interim meetings run more > effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs > might then run more interim virtual meetings and help > distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference? VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time? > Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the > quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There > is some amount of precedence for this with the IESG's telechats. > They could be structured like regular wg meetings with moderation, > etc for well known ones, and the same room could be reused for > ad hoc/sidebar discussions when not in use. Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;) What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to help interim meetings run more effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs might then run more interim virtual meetings and help distribute the workload over the year more smoothly. -- Tim/::1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
Keith Moore wrote: sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber) more effective than actually attending the meeting. I sometimes am surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see what is relevant. I also think it might be less distracting to attend a meeting from my own office than to be in a room full of people who aren't paying attention. Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time? Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There is some amount of precedence for this with the IESG's telechats. They could be structured like regular wg meetings with moderation, etc for well known ones, and the same room could be reused for ad hoc/sidebar discussions when not in use. Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: 2 hour meetings
On Fri Mar 24 13:03:11 2006, Keith Moore wrote: sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber) more effective than actually attending the meeting. I sometimes am surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see what is relevant. I also think it might be less distracting to attend a meeting from my own office than to be in a room full of people who aren't paying attention. I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm generally used to the text chat thing, the lag, etc. The audio lag is more unnerving, in the cases where the Jabber scribe is helpfully typing in what people are going to say before they say it. Many thanks to all the jabber scribes in those meetings I virtually attended, and, just as important, thanks to those physically present who also monitored and used the Jabber rooms, and thus made me feel somewhat like an attendee (albeit in the cheap seats) rather than a "not present". I'm somewhat hoping that the use of the Jabber server outside the meetings might be able to take off as a method for more high-bandwidth discussion, paradoxically leaving more time in the "real" meetings for the kind of presentations that Keith hates, but this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and areas. of course, that doesn't make up for the lack of face time in the bar - and the ability to work things out in the hallways and generally just get to know our fellow conspirators personally is a lot of the reason we need to have these meetings. Sure, and meeting quite a few people back in Paris was great. unfortunately, it's hard to get expensed to travel halfway across the world to drink with other geeks. "expensed"... Yeah, that'd be good too. Dave. -- You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?" - George Bernard Shaw ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
2 hour meetings
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't afford to block out an entire week because they don't know when or where the 2 hour meeting is going to be. (This even applies to some WG Chairs ;-) ...especially when the 2 hour meeting is all-too-often mostly consumed with PowerPoint presentations (not discussions) of half-baked or irrelevant proposals, given to a roomful of people who are mostly zoned out staring at their laptops (probably because staring at slides is just too painful). I never cease to be amazed at how poorly we use our meeting time these days, especially given what we invest in those meetings in terms of money and travel stress. (Or maybe I'm just attending the wrong groups? once in awhile I do stumble on a group that is using its time productively) I would support any plan that will make meetings cheaper and easier to attend for everybody. I'd like quick action, not a 2 year study to think about it. sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber) more effective than actually attending the meeting. I sometimes am surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see what is relevant. I also think it might be less distracting to attend a meeting from my own office than to be in a room full of people who aren't paying attention. of course, that doesn't make up for the lack of face time in the bar - and the ability to work things out in the hallways and generally just get to know our fellow conspirators personally is a lot of the reason we need to have these meetings. unfortunately, it's hard to get expensed to travel halfway across the world to drink with other geeks. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
