Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:11, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: I agree with the notion that the primary purpose of the meeting is discussion. What you and I tell those who present in v6ops is that we want the presentation to guide and support a discussion, and anything that is pure presentation should take no more than half of the time allotted to them. I don't see that the tool is the problem, it's the user of the tool, and we all vary in our presentation/discussion skills. Exactly. If the presentation is one slide listing the key changes in the document since the last revision/meeting, and one slide per key question/issue being asked of the room, then that should help facilitate good discussion, not hinder it. What doesn't work is a 15 minute presentation of the current contents of a draft that leaves a couple of minutes for questions. It's not the tool, it's how it's used. And fwiw I think Fred and Joel have done a decent job of this in v6ops, and one of the things that's helped there is trimming out drafts that don't have evidence of a decent level of mail list discussion. Tim
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/04/2012 08:29 AM, Tim Chown wrote: Exactly. If the presentation is one slide listing the key changes in the document since the last revision/meeting, and one slide per key question/issue being asked of the room, then that should help facilitate good discussion, not hinder it. What doesn't work is a 15 minute presentation of the current contents of a draft that leaves a couple of minutes for questions. It's not the tool, it's how it's used. I'm somewhat amused that so many IETFers seem to be saying don't blame the tool, blame the people. Blaming people is such an effective way to encourage them to change their habits. :) Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/3/2012 9:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 12/03/2012 08:57 AM, George, Wes wrote: You have a very specific opinion of what an effective WG session should be like and what people should and should not be doing to facilitate such. Sounds like you need to work with the EDU team to give a Sunday afternoon training session entitled how not to turn a WG session into a broadcast-only medium possibly with a section for WG chairs and a section for potential speakers. Years ago, my impression was that that Sunday training sessions were pretty much ignored by anyone experienced in the organization. Is this still the case? Yes. However, the pan-galactic plenaries are still sort-of paid-attention-to by those who are present at the meetings, except for those totally distracted by the bad-attitude room. Tony Hansen
RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore Years ago, my impression was that that Sunday training sessions were pretty much ignored by anyone experienced in the organization. Is this still the case? I've been to the newcomers tutorial at least five times in the last three years. I've been to tutorials on tools for creating internet-drafts two or three times. I continue to learn, and things change. I recommend more attendees attend more of these sessions (in listening mode). Lee
RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore it's kind of weird that we cut off discussion so that we can proceed to the next presentation. It's done all the time (I've done it, myself) and while there's definitely a sense that we need to cover the material we've said we're going to cover in a meeting, why does breadth take priority over depth? [WEG] I think this requires making a judgment call between a ratholed discussion, or an impasse between two strongly held opinions vs. meaningful progress. Sometimes the former and the latter masquerade as each other and are therefore mishandled. Again, comes down to how the meeting is structured - do you prioritize a set of current drafts that need to have meaningful discussion, and accept the fact that presentations on new work might lose their timeslots if discussion runs long? I think that's an acceptable risk, especially since anyone who is technically on the agenda can build a presentation and have it be in the proceedings so that people can review after the meeting. I know I had more than one meeting where there were many valuable presentations, and a large number of them were added to the agenda with zero minutes allocated, so that they'd be ready if we had time to discuss them during the meeting once the priority discussions were completed, but also so they'd be in the proceedings when we didn't. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore A different toolset, (e.g. pens and paper and overhead cameras coupled to projectors), would likely produce better results if that toolset did not encourage laziness in preparing materials to facilitate discussion. [WEG] I don't know about anyone else here, but you do *not* want me to attempt to facilitate a discussion using freehand drawings and writing. My handwriting and drawing skill was bad before I discovered a keyboard, and years of atrophy have made its usefulness approach zero as a meaningful method of communication. You'd be better off with the aforementioned stone tablets and cuneiform in terms of understanding. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/handwriting And I echo what Dave said - quit blaming the tools and assuming that forcing people to use tools they're not used to using will fix this. You have a very specific opinion of what an effective WG session should be like and what people should and should not be doing to facilitate such. Sounds like you need to work with the EDU team to give a Sunday afternoon training session entitled how not to turn a WG session into a broadcast-only medium possibly with a section for WG chairs and a section for potential speakers. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/03/2012 08:57 AM, George, Wes wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore A different toolset, (e.g. pens and paper and overhead cameras coupled to projectors), would likely produce better results if that toolset did not encourage laziness in preparing materials to facilitate discussion. [WEG] I don't know about anyone else here, but you do *not* want me to attempt to facilitate a discussion using freehand drawings and writing. My handwriting and drawing skill was bad before I discovered a keyboard, and years of atrophy have made its usefulness approach zero as a meaningful method of communication. You'd be better off with the aforementioned stone tablets and cuneiform in terms of understanding. Nothing would prevent you from preparing drawings in advance (even using PowerPoint, if you wished) and bringing them to the meeting on paper. And you could still annotate them with pens during the discussion if you found it useful to do so. For that matter, nothing would prevent you from plugging your laptop into the projector, except perhaps the groans from the participants who might think you were about to start a presentation. And I echo what Dave said - quit blaming the tools and assuming that forcing people to use tools they're not used to using will fix this. I've seen over and over again that the choice of tools significantly affects how people interact and the quality of their interaction, and I'm frankly amazed that others in IETF haven't seen this also. And I don't really propose that people be forbidden to use PowerPoint. There will still be times when it's an appropriate tool, and hard-and-fast process rules can create as many problems as they solve. But I do suggest that if someone is alloted a discussion session in an IETF WG meeting, that he should think twice before sitting down to use PowerPoint to crank out a deck of slides for it. I also realize that people don't like to change the tools that they're accustomed to using. But the whole point of this discussion is to encourage this community, and people in this community, to make better use of precious meeting time, have better discussions, produce better specifications, and to do so more quickly. To the extent which our community's habits have contributed to poor use of meeting time and degraded the quality of discussion, it makes sense to reexamine those habits. And use of PowerPoint is one of those habits which I believe should be reexamined. You have a very specific opinion of what an effective WG session should be like and what people should and should not be doing to facilitate such. Sounds like you need to work with the EDU team to give a Sunday afternoon training session entitled how not to turn a WG session into a broadcast-only medium possibly with a section for WG chairs and a section for potential speakers. Years ago, my impression was that that Sunday training sessions were pretty much ignored by anyone experienced in the organization. Is this still the case? Keith
RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com] Years ago, my impression was that that Sunday training sessions were pretty much ignored by anyone experienced in the organization. Is this still the case? [WEG] Depends on the subject matter. If they're all targeted at new attendees, it follows that no experienced attendees would be interested. At 5 years in, I guess you could call me experienced in the organization, and I attended one during IETF84 about crypto and security. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material that they can review and follow along on? I don't think that's even remotely helpful. To my mind, that is a key concept. Also, a prepared slide showing a graphic and a whiteboard rendition of the same graphic both show a graphic. What is different is that the prepared slide will be more readable (a font is much clearer than my handwriting), and will take less (real) time to produce (I can show a slide instantly, but it may take a couple of minutes to draw the picture). And third, the prepared slide is thought through in advance; the drawn graphic needs to be as well to really be useful, but may be dreamed up on the spot, written over several times as the discussion proceeds, etc. From my perspective, a white board or flip chart is a good thing and I usually ask from one to be present when I speak. The prepared slides are useful for everyone and especially ESL folks. And BTW, the listener with the slides on his own computer can flip around in the deck on his own (wait a minute, didn't he just say [flip flip]... Oh, he's saying …) where an erased whiteboard can't be flipped back to. I agree with the notion that the primary purpose of the meeting is discussion. What you and I tell those who present in v6ops is that we want the presentation to guide and support a discussion, and anything that is pure presentation should take no more than half of the time allotted to them. I don't see that the tool is the problem, it's the user of the tool, and we all vary in our presentation/discussion skills.
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/02/2012 12:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: But can be considerably aided in many cases by written material (slides, summaries, or both) well in advance especially if those material are also used at the meeting, thereby aiding synchronization. This is a very specific matter of technique. As I started doing more presentations outside the US or with mixed audiences, I was told that the challenge of slide content is to make it neither too terse nor too verbose. Too terse imparts too little information for a reader who is using them to augment listening to the English. Too verbose, of course, takes too much time to read for real-time. In addition, slides often circulate later and need to have enough text to be useful without the speaker's commentary. So I try to use telegraphic text that stands on its own. That is, it's a terse as I can make it, while still making sense without my commentary. (It turns out this also provides the opportunity to have the speaking commentary go beyond the slide text, since I can let the audience rely on the slides for key points.) I think you're missing the point. The core problem is the overuse of presentations, and presentation tools, for working group face to face meeting time which is better suited for discussion. For those occasions when presentations are appropriate, or for slides that are provided as background material in advance of the discussion, the above is good advice. Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/2012 9:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote: I think you're missing the point. The core problem is the overuse of presentations, and presentation tools, for working group face to face meeting time which is better suited for discussion. stop blaming the tool. focus on the folks doing the speaking. tools can be used well or poorly. technique matters, but what matters most is whether the speaker is saying useful things in useful ways. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/02/2012 12:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/2/2012 9:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote: I think you're missing the point. The core problem is the overuse of presentations, and presentation tools, for working group face to face meeting time which is better suited for discussion. stop blaming the tool. focus on the folks doing the speaking. The tool is a big part of the problem. The tool encourages a certain style of interaction that is generally inappropriate for face to face working group meetings. Of course, strictly speaking, the focus is on the people who are using the tool, and more broadly, on using the habit and community expectation that keeps encouraging people to use a poorly suited tool. But they're using the tool poorly precisely because it's very difficult to use that tool well for that purpose. A different toolset, (e.g. pens and paper and overhead cameras coupled to projectors), would likely produce better results if that toolset did not encourage laziness in preparing materials to facilitate discussion. Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/12 10:06 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 12/02/2012 12:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/2/2012 9:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote: I think you're missing the point. The core problem is the overuse of presentations, and presentation tools, for working group face to face meeting time which is better suited for discussion. stop blaming the tool. focus on the folks doing the speaking. The tool is a big part of the problem. The tool encourages a certain style of interaction that is generally inappropriate for face to face working group meetings. We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material that they can review and follow along on? I don't think that's even remotely helpful. Of course, strictly speaking, the focus is on the people who are using the tool, and more broadly, on using the habit and community expectation that keeps encouraging people to use a poorly suited tool. But they're using the tool poorly precisely because it's very difficult to use that tool well for that purpose. A different toolset, (e.g. pens and paper and overhead cameras coupled to projectors), would likely produce better results if that toolset did not encourage laziness in preparing materials to facilitate discussion. Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/02/2012 01:46 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material that they can review and follow along on? I don't think that's even remotely helpful. In general, the purpose of those meetings is *discussion*, not presentation. I'm all for exploring better ways to facilitate *discussion* among the diversity of IETF meeting attendees. But our experience with use of previously-prepared PowerPoint presentations to facilitate *discussion* shows that use of that tool, in that way and for that purpose, is a miserable failure. Of course I'd encourage speakers to make available for download summaries of the material to be discussed in advance of the meeting, for the benefit of non-native English speakers and others. PowerPoint (or better, PDF of material prepared in PowerPoint) seems like a reasonable format for that. I also think it would be quite helpful to arrange for the topics discussed and points raised in the discussion to be displayed in the room in real time, as they are typed. This would provide non-native speakers with visuals similar to what they see now with PowerPoint, but without the undesirable side-effect of coercing discussion time into presentations. This would also reinforce the need for a minute-taker and help to keep the minute-takers honest. (I doubt that PowerPoint is the best tool for this purpose, since it would be highly desirable to convey the same information, at the same time, to remote participants.) Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/12 11:15 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 12/02/2012 01:46 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material that they can review and follow along on? I don't think that's even remotely helpful. In general, the purpose of those meetings is *discussion*, not presentation. I'm all for exploring better ways to facilitate *discussion* among the diversity of IETF meeting attendees. But our experience with use of previously-prepared PowerPoint presentations to facilitate *discussion* shows that use of that tool, in that way and for that purpose, is a miserable failure. Since you and I attend a significant number of the same working groups we should have some shared experience, but I'm going to flat out disagree. It's possbile that we had completely different experiences in the same meetings, but I do firmly believe that slides are facilitatiing both the speakers coverage of the problems they're trying to address, and the participants dicussion of the problems enumerated. As a chair one should be engaged in some editorial oversight of the contents of slides. Of course I'd encourage speakers to make available for download summaries of the material to be discussed in advance of the meeting, for the benefit of non-native English speakers and others. PowerPoint (or better, PDF of material prepared in PowerPoint) seems like a reasonable format for that. the reflexive reference to a particular tool isn't a helpful point of this discussion imho... It doesn't matter to me what format the slides are in so long as these serve to structure the conversation. Powerpoint is a tool (and one I don't use), there are plently of others that can serve to get the point across. If a state diagram benefits from animation, then you should pick the appropiate tool. whichever tool it is the assumption is that the output will be projected and potentially displayed remotely. The import conceit, imho is that the material is prepared prior to the meeting so that it can be distributed (and this may be the point of actual contention for you). I also think it would be quite helpful to arrange for the topics discussed and points raised in the discussion to be displayed in the room in real time, as they are typed. This would provide non-native speakers with visuals similar to what they see now with PowerPoint, but without the undesirable side-effect of coercing discussion time into presentations. This would also reinforce the need for a minute-taker and help to keep the minute-takers honest. This is a meeting workflow change, I can think of several ways to approach it. as with note taking, jabber scribing and managing remote participants it requires someone to do the work (though it may overlap with one of the other activities). (I doubt that PowerPoint is the best tool for this purpose, since it would be highly desirable to convey the same information, at the same time, to remote participants.) it would be helpful abstract the tool dicussion away from particular applications, at the heart of the problem, is not which text/media formatting application is used. Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/02/2012 03:57 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 12/2/12 11:15 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 12/02/2012 01:46 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around material that they can review and follow along on? I don't think that's even remotely helpful. In general, the purpose of those meetings is *discussion*, not presentation. I'm all for exploring better ways to facilitate *discussion* among the diversity of IETF meeting attendees. But our experience with use of previously-prepared PowerPoint presentations to facilitate *discussion* shows that use of that tool, in that way and for that purpose, is a miserable failure. Since you and I attend a significant number of the same working groups we should have some shared experience, but I'm going to flat out disagree. It's possbile that we had completely different experiences in the same meetings, but I do firmly believe that slides are facilitatiing both the speakers coverage of the problems they're trying to address, and the participants dicussion of the problems enumerated. I saw very little productive discussion happening in Atlanta in the vast majority of working group meetings which I attended. True, there were times when people queued up at the microphones. (though that's actually a pretty inefficient way to have a discussion.) The vast majority of the time in nearly every session I attended was occupied by speakers standing at the front of room in front of a screen of mostly text, and a room full of people who were mostly not paying attention. (and when people did try to discuss things, the chairs kept trying to cut the lines short because they had more PRESENTATIONS to get througharrgh.) Of course I'd encourage speakers to make available for download summaries of the material to be discussed in advance of the meeting, for the benefit of non-native English speakers and others. PowerPoint (or better, PDF of material prepared in PowerPoint) seems like a reasonable format for that. the reflexive reference to a particular tool isn't a helpful point of this discussion imho... I think people understand that I'm not talking specifically about a particular tool for creating presentations. It doesn't matter which tool you use, the problem is the notion that meeting time should consist primarily (or even significantly) of presenters standing in front of a screen on which mostly-text is being displayed, and the content of what is being said closely corresponds to what is on the screen. A related problem is that people are paying attention to the words on the screen which is distracting them from what is actually being said.And because the bitrate of the information being presented is low, people tend to not pay much attention anyway, and they tend do things that further distract from the meeting. PowerPoint is just a convenient one-word shorthand for this phenomenon. The problem isn't the specific tool that's being used, but the phenomenon almost inherently comes with use of PowerPoint or any of several similar tools. And everybody has seen it happen and associates it with the word PowerPoint. What matters is that a lot of meeting time is being wasted by filling it up with presentations, and by trying to have discussions using media and techniques and habits that are better suited for presentations. (though the idea that PowerPoint and similar tools even help to facilitate good presentations is itself pretty dubious.) I also think it would be quite helpful to arrange for the topics discussed and points raised in the discussion to be displayed in the room in real time, as they are typed. This would provide non-native speakers with visuals similar to what they see now with PowerPoint, but without the undesirable side-effect of coercing discussion time into presentations. This would also reinforce the need for a minute-taker and help to keep the minute-takers honest. This is a meeting workflow change, I can think of several ways to approach it. as with note taking, jabber scribing and managing remote participants it requires someone to do the work (though it may overlap with one of the other activities). Of course. And I'm not set on a particular approach; I just want to facilitate more effective discussion (and in a way that tries to accommodate those who have trouble understanding the speakers). But I do suspect that somehow the job of typing something that appears immediately on the screen, might be more appealing than the job of taking minutes or being a Jabber scribe. If one person typing could do an adequate job of all of the above, that would be nice, as we'd need fewer volunteers. (I doubt that PowerPoint is the best tool for this purpose, since it
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/12 19:02 , Keith Moore wrote:\ I saw very little productive discussion happening in Atlanta in the vast majority of working group meetings which I attended. True, there were times when people queued up at the microphones. (though that's actually a pretty inefficient way to have a discussion.) I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. Shouting? If the case is that you're in a room with 200 people and you have people listening remotely, then fundamentally more discipline is required then if you have 20 people around a table.
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. i know it's a leap, but maybe presume people are adults
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/02/2012 10:49 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: On 12/2/12 19:02 , Keith Moore wrote:\ I saw very little productive discussion happening in Atlanta in the vast majority of working group meetings which I attended. True, there were times when people queued up at the microphones. (though that's actually a pretty inefficient way to have a discussion.) I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. We used to do it fairly well in IETF, in the days before the rooms had (or needed) microphones. We did it successfully in days when IETF meetings were about as big as they are now. Unfortunately, when the microphones were introduced, chairs started insisting that people queue at the microphones in order to say something, and this helped considerably to degrade discussion. Shouting? The discussions could indeed get lively. But participants generally respected each other. On the rare occasions when they didn't, the chairs could (and did) intervene. If the case is that you're in a room with 200 people and you have people listening remotely, then fundamentally more discipline is required then if you have 20 people around a table. Perhaps. But if the meeting rooms weren't such good places to sleep, read email, randomly browse, play Solitare, whatever, perhaps they wouldn't be so filled with mostly-inactive attendees. Keith
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/12 19:52 , Randy Bush wrote: I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. i know it's a leap, but maybe presume people are adults and that everyone of them has a microphone
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. i know it's a leap, but maybe presume people are adults and that everyone of them has a microphone so we build our meetings around the fears, will someone speak unacceptably, will someone appeal, will someone pass gas in class? next we can have the tsa screen people at the door. can we please play the upside. there is a high road, let's take it. randy
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/12 8:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. i know it's a leap, but maybe presume people are adults and that everyone of them has a microphone so we build our meetings around the fears, will someone speak unacceptably, will someone appeal, will someone pass gas in class? next we can have the tsa screen people at the door. currently we don't do it that way (hand everyone a mic) because it's infeasable. Oddly I have none of the above fears. can we please play the upside. there is a high road, let's take it. I thought I was. Mic discipline exists because, we have big rooms that require sound reinforcement, and remote participants and a recording. So if you're concerned about being heard, or hearing or the historical record, you should be in favor of it in general I've never noted the existence of a mic line at an IETF precluding statements which I find disagreeable, so I have trouble imagining them being used for that purpose. randy
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/2012 8:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I'm unclear on how we'd carry on a discussion without a floor management discipline. ... people are adults ... ...there is a high road, let's take it. A series of glib catch-phrases are certain not to facilitate meaningful discussion, any more than does treating the use of particular technologies as a problem. The question put forward was serious and relevant. It warrants serious response. Microphones introduce a consideration to the process, but then so does the 'presence' of remote participants. It's not that difficult to manage the room productively given these realities. Chairs do it all the time. The discipline they impose varies, but, for example, a per-participant, random interpretation in the style of do whatever you think is the adult behavior isn't one of the choices. They /manage/ the process. In very small scale, with a few active participants who share the same meeting management model, the chairs have a particularly easy time. But let's not confuse that with an amorphous act like adults reference. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
On 12/2/12 7:54 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: Microphones introduce a consideration to the process, but then so does the 'presence' of remote participants. It's not that difficult to manage the room productively given these realities. Chairs do it all the time. This is off the topic at hand but I do think it's worthwhile to circle back to one point in particular that Keith made, and that's that it's kind of weird that we cut off discussion so that we can proceed to the next presentation. It's done all the time (I've done it, myself) and while there's definitely a sense that we need to cover the material we've said we're going to cover in a meeting, why does breadth take priority over depth? Melinda
