Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/02/2012 01:29 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 12/1/12 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sadly, too many of us remember writing on scrolls of acetate. i imagine that some remember stone and chisels. At the last meeting, for my own stuff I went with the old one-slide approach. However, it did occur to me that by doing that the slide(s) lost its archival value (slim as that may have been) for people not in the room. Anyway. Not really sure what can be done about this - you can say discussion, not presentation until you're blue in the face and the outcome of all that will be a blue face but presentations during the meetings anyway. Ultimately I expect it comes down to how individual chairs want to run meetings. I think that organizations sometimes get into habits of doing things regardless of whether those things work well. And the habits sometimes become so entrenched that it's considered heresy to suggest that they be changed. Even individual chairs might have a difficult time changing those habits for their own working groups. Keith
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 02/12/2012 07:32, Randall Gellens wrote: At 3:19 PM +0900 12/2/12, Randy Bush wrote: o if someone wants to float a new idea worth describing, then give them five or ten minutes on the agenda to ask others for input, no preso/ppt. Seeing something visual can help people grasp what someone is saying. Yes. It escapes me why we would hamper ourselves by *not* using diagrams to explain complicated new ideas. The first time. Not the second and subsequent times; that's why we have proceedings. It also escapes me why we would hamper ourselves by not projecting lists of open issues. True, almost everyone has a little screen on their knee. Mine is usually full of jabber sessions for clashing WG meetings, the text currently under discussion, etc. I prefer to see the current discussion item on the big screen. We should also remember that in our community with very diverse ways of pronouncing the English language, the words on the big screen are sometimes better understood than the words spoken. I do agree that the ability to write new stuff on the screen in real time was a significant advantage of the old acetate sheet. That is clumsy to do with PPT. Brian
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
Hi Melinda, At 22:29 01-12-2012, Melinda Shore wrote: Not really sure what can be done about this - you can say discussion, not presentation until you're blue in the face and the outcome of all that will be a blue face but presentations during the meetings anyway. Ultimately I expect it comes down to how individual chairs want to run meetings. Yes. Powerpoint is intended 'for interpretation by a program that understands the data on the recipient's system. Recipients need to understand that they are at the mercy of the sender, when receiving this type of data, since data will be executed on their system, and the security of their machines can be violated' [1]. These powerpoint presentations are good enough to keep people entertained for the duration of the session. They mask the fact that there hasn't been any discussion of the issues on a mailing list. Pete Resnick mentioned that doing document reviews in presentation form where the editor is the one doing the slides has created this problem [2]. This comes down to we have seen others doing it and that's why we do it. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/assignments/media-types/application/vnd.ms-powerpoint 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76080.html
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/02/2012 03:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Yes. It escapes me why we would hamper ourselves by *not* using diagrams to explain complicated new ideas. The first time. Not the second and subsequent times; that's why we have proceedings. It also escapes me why we would hamper ourselves by not projecting lists of open issues. True, almost everyone has a little screen on their knee. Mine is usually full of jabber sessions for clashing WG meetings, the text currently under discussion, etc. I prefer to see the current discussion item on the big screen. We should also remember that in our community with very diverse ways of pronouncing the English language, the words on the big screen are sometimes better understood than the words spoken. I do agree that the ability to write new stuff on the screen in real time was a significant advantage of the old acetate sheet. That is clumsy to do with PPT. I have no objection to using PPT to display diagrams or lists of open issues. And I understand that PPT can be of aid to those (including me) who have trouble with understanding the diverse ways that English is spoken. But I still maintain that there's something about PPT and similar tools that tend to degrade interaction rather than facilitate it, and that this is tremendously damaging to the way IETF working groups conduct their face-to-face sessions. For example, PPT is much better at conveying short, bulleted lists than diagrams. It's tedious to draw diagrams with PPT, and I suspect, with most similar tools. Most computers still have keyboards which are good for inputing text, but most computers don't have an input stylus for drawing. And it's much more time consuming to draw adequate drawings with a mouse or trackpad than to draw them on acetate with a pen. For another, PPT's ability to rearrange slides actually makes it really good for working out the order of things to be presented. There's nothing at all wrong with using PPT in that way, as long as the slides aren't actually projected on the screen, and the speaker doesn't feel compelled to follow them closely. (The PPT files could still be made available for download, even in advance, thus inviting participants to prepare their own questions and counterpoints in advance.) Also, there's something about PPT that seems to encourage speakers to attempt to capture everything that's possibly relevant to a topic, and thus, to fill up all available time, leaving none for discussion. Maybe this is why the best way that I've ever discovered to use PPT is to help me collect my thoughts and organize them into a logical sequence for presentation; then to identify the points which are best conveyed by drawing and to incorporate those drawings into the presentation; then to hide all or almost all of the text-only slides. If we want to work effectively, we must not let our work habits be dictated by newer technology, especially when older and simpler technology works better. If slide projectors, sheets of acetate, and appropriate pens are no longer readily available, perhaps we need to ship large dry-erase boards and markers for those to every meeting. Keith p.s. I certainly acknowledge the difficulty in understanding different dialects of English. But it strikes me that part of the problem is the high level of ambient noise in the presentation environment, resulting in large part from having large numbers of people in the room who aren't paying (much) attention and who are each generating small amounts of noise, say by typing on laptops, or chatting quietly with those sitting near them. This is just one way that people who are just camping out in a room distract from what is going on.
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 08:40 -0500 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: I have no objection to using PPT to display diagrams or lists of open issues. And I understand that PPT can be of aid to those (including me) who have trouble with understanding the diverse ways that English is spoken. But I still maintain that there's something about PPT and similar tools that tend to degrade interaction rather than facilitate it, and that this is tremendously damaging to the way IETF working groups conduct their face-to-face sessions. Part of that, as both Randy's indirectly pointed out, is that we lost something going from overhead projector transparencies to PowerPoint (or PDF decks, etc.). The former could be used to facilitate a discussion by combining the best features of previously-prepared outlines, diagrams, agendas, etc., with with ability to for a speaker or chair mark up slides, or make new ones, in real time. By contrast, PowerPoint and those projectors mostly permit only the go forward and go back buttons. For example, PPT is much better at conveying short, bulleted lists than diagrams. It's tedious to draw diagrams with PPT, and I suspect, with most similar tools. Most computers still have keyboards which are good for inputing text, but most computers don't have an input stylus for drawing. And it's much more time consuming to draw adequate drawings with a mouse or trackpad than to draw them on acetate with a pen. Yes. But I am less concerned about how long it takes to prepare a presentation than I am about what goes on during the meeting discussion. If the diagrams are going into a PowerPoint package, there is always the draw with pencil, scan, and insert into deck possibility. ... Also, there's something about PPT that seems to encourage speakers to attempt to capture everything that's possibly relevant to a topic, and thus, to fill up all available time, leaving none for discussion. I think the same could be said for any outline that is prepared before a meeting and made available to the audience. Speakers have to understand what they are (or should be) trying to do, why the purpose of their presentations is (almost always) to frame and stimulate discussion and not just to show the speaker's mastery of the subject matter (and WG Chairs and others need to reinforce that understanding). ... If we want to work effectively, we must not let our work habits be dictated by newer technology, especially when older and simpler technology works better. If slide projectors, sheets of acetate, and appropriate pens are no longer readily available, perhaps we need to ship large dry-erase boards and markers for those to every meeting. They are still available. Having dragged my own flip chart easel (in a bag and checked as baggage) to a few meetings in ancient times, I imagine all surviving ones of of those aren't in museums either. But rigs for cameras that are set up to be pointed down onto sheets of paper on which drawings and notes are being made are a lot more compact, compatible with the projectors we are using already, and, like overhead transparencies and PowerPoint-like decks, leave traces that can easily be incorporated into minutes -- something that is less feasible with any whiteboard technology we'd be likely to be able to drag around. best, john
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/02/2012 09:45 AM, John C Klensin wrote: But rigs for cameras that are set up to be pointed down onto sheets of paper on which drawings and notes are being made are a lot more compact, compatible with the projectors we are using already, and, like overhead transparencies and PowerPoint-like decks, leave traces that can easily be incorporated into minutes -- something that is less feasible with any whiteboard technology we'd be likely to be able to drag around. I'd love to see us adopt such technology and strongly encourage its use, while at the same time actively discouraging the use of these meeting slots for /presentations/ and instead treating them as /discussions/. (Another way to put is that even if we provide such cameras in meetings along with colored pens and paper, we will continue to see PowerPoint being used as it is today unless there's a community-wide effort to change our entrenched habits.) Keith
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: ... (Another way to put is that even if we provide such cameras in meetings along with colored pens and paper, we will continue to see PowerPoint being used as it is today unless there's a community-wide effort to change our entrenched habits.) Sure. But it is the now-entrenched habits that are the problem. The overuse of PowerPoint for purposes of which neither of us approve is merely a symptom, not, IMO, a cause (even if it reinforces the behaviors). Anyone for incorporating a slide (!) into the Newcomer's Presentation (!!) that says a presentation in a f2f meeting that makes extensive use of PowerPoint decks with many and/or dense slides brands the presenter as either a newcomer, someone who is trying to avoid an actual discussion, or a fool? :-( john
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/02/2012 10:03 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: ... (Another way to put is that even if we provide such cameras in meetings along with colored pens and paper, we will continue to see PowerPoint being used as it is today unless there's a community-wide effort to change our entrenched habits.) Sure. But it is the now-entrenched habits that are the problem. The overuse of PowerPoint for purposes of which neither of us approve is merely a symptom, not, IMO, a cause (even if it reinforces the behaviors). Agreed, though sometimes when changing habits it helps to focus attention on the most visible or tangible part of the habit. It's always been possible, and will presumably remain possible, to build small PowerPoint decks that consist of only a few diagrams, to leave some blank slides in the middle of the deck for the purpose of typing in comments made at meetings, etc. -- all for the purpose of facilitating discussion. I wouldn't have a problem with PowerPoint being used in that way, though I suspect that it will be difficult for people to restrain themselves to using PowerPoint in that way as long as that's the tool that they're using. Anyone for incorporating a slide (!) into the Newcomer's Presentation (!!) that says a presentation in a f2f meeting that makes extensive use of PowerPoint decks with many and/or dense slides brands the presenter as either a newcomer, someone who is trying to avoid an actual discussion, or a fool? :-( Yes, but first we need to get existing WG chairs to say that to their participants, and to push back on people who continue to do use PowerPoint in that way in meetings. Keith
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
Anyone for incorporating a slide (!) into the Newcomer's Presentation (!!) that says a presentation in a f2f meeting that makes extensive use of PowerPoint decks with many and/or dense slides brands the presenter as either a newcomer, someone who is trying to avoid an actual discussion, or a fool? :-( No, just hand out copies of this: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_pp -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
There is another unfortunate community habit that I have noticed. It is, I believe, a consequence o their being simply too much stuff to look at. If you have a working group that is considering new ideas (looking to recharter), you are more likely to get folks to read the draft, either before or shortly after the meeting, if you get a presentation slot in the meeting. In particular, if the presentation sounds interesting, he odds of readership go up. This is not discussion. The odds of getting much discussion if the idea is competent are pretty low. (I am putting aside the useful result where the participants go to the mike and bash the idea hard. That at least is discussion, even if not the discussion the presenter wanted.) But it seems to be one of the few ways we have to get folks to pay attention. Yours, Joel On 12/2/2012 10:12 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 12/02/2012 10:03 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote: ... (Another way to put is that even if we provide such cameras in meetings along with colored pens and paper, we will continue to see PowerPoint being used as it is today unless there's a community-wide effort to change our entrenched habits.) Sure. But it is the now-entrenched habits that are the problem. The overuse of PowerPoint for purposes of which neither of us approve is merely a symptom, not, IMO, a cause (even if it reinforces the behaviors). Agreed, though sometimes when changing habits it helps to focus attention on the most visible or tangible part of the habit. It's always been possible, and will presumably remain possible, to build small PowerPoint decks that consist of only a few diagrams, to leave some blank slides in the middle of the deck for the purpose of typing in comments made at meetings, etc. -- all for the purpose of facilitating discussion. I wouldn't have a problem with PowerPoint being used in that way, though I suspect that it will be difficult for people to restrain themselves to using PowerPoint in that way as long as that's the tool that they're using. Anyone for incorporating a slide (!) into the Newcomer's Presentation (!!) that says a presentation in a f2f meeting that makes extensive use of PowerPoint decks with many and/or dense slides brands the presenter as either a newcomer, someone who is trying to avoid an actual discussion, or a fool? :-( Yes, but first we need to get existing WG chairs to say that to their participants, and to push back on people who continue to do use PowerPoint in that way in meetings. Keith
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:19 -0500 Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: There is another unfortunate community habit that I have noticed. It is, I believe, a consequence o their being simply too much stuff to look at. Of course, having too much stuff to look at is ultimately a consequence of the inability of the Steering Group to prioritize and structure work enough (even if it means saying no to reasonable, but less-important, proposals) that the number of things people (and they) have to look at bears a reasonable relationship to available time and resources. That really fundamental problem is one that restrictions on PowerPoint or presentations, or even ideas about how to fast-track some work, are not going to fix. In fairness to the IESG, it is also impossible for them to fix unless the community is willing to support their saying no or insufficient resources to some proposals for WGs or for work within WGs. But, as long as they simply accept almost all proposals that someone wants to work on and that are not obviously technically stupid, there is no chance of knowing whether the community would support pushing back on lower-priority work. If you have a working group that is considering new ideas (looking to recharter), you are more likely to get folks to read the draft, either before or shortly after the meeting, if you get a presentation slot in the meeting. In particular, if the presentation sounds interesting, he odds of readership go up. ... Yes, but see above. best, john
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/02/2012 12:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:19 -0500 Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote: There is another unfortunate community habit that I have noticed. It is, I believe, a consequence o their being simply too much stuff to look at. Of course, having too much stuff to look at is ultimately a consequence of the inability of the Steering Group to prioritize and structure work enough (even if it means saying no to reasonable, but less-important, proposals) that the number of things people (and they) have to look at bears a reasonable relationship to available time and resources. I'd add working group chairs (though I'm sure there are a few exceptions) to the list of those with an apparent inability to prioritize and structure work. Or perhaps WGs should have to get approval from their supervising AD before they can take on new documents. Keith
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/2/12 8:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote: I'd add working group chairs (though I'm sure there are a few exceptions) to the list of those with an apparent inability to prioritize and structure work. Or perhaps WGs should have to get approval from their supervising AD before they can take on new documents. There's a whole nexus of connected issues here, I think, and what a given person complains about depends on that person's pet peeves. It seems to me that if we were better about moving work forward between meetings (- peeve!) meeting time wouldn't be chewed up with presenting the current state of the work. I think design teams are a handy tool for keeping things moving and have the side-effect of potentially improving meeting quality. I'll be the first to admit the possibility of abuse/things going wrong but I think keeping work moving is one of the keys to solving this problem. I know the EDU team is working hard and has a tough task, but I also wonder if improving however it is that we acculturate newer participants might not help, as well. I would guess that if you polled meeting participants you'd get a majority of respondents thinking that meetings are for presentation and that meetings are used for document adoption and document content decisions. Melinda
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
At 9:45 AM -0500 12/2/12, John C Klensin wrote: But rigs for cameras that are set up to be pointed down onto sheets of paper on which drawings and notes are being made are a lot more compact, compatible with the projectors we are using already, and, like overhead transparencies and PowerPoint-like decks, leave traces that can easily be incorporated into minutes I like it this suggestion. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- People must not attempt to impose their own 'truth' on others. The right to profess the truth must always be upheld, but not in a way that involves contempt for those who may think differently. --John Paul II, 1/1/91
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/29/2012 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: F2f meetings are explicitly managed, with significant control of the room. Mailing list exchanges are typically not managed at all. Given the difference, it's not surprising that one proves more productive than the other. Please don't confuse management with encouraging productivity. In Atlanta I witnessed several f2f WG meetings that were explicitly managed, and completely unproductive. (Hint: anytime the vast majority of a f2f meeting is devoted to presentations, it's almost certainly useless. Even if there were occasions when participants were asked to hum.) Keith
PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 11/29/2012 06:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 11/29/12 3:45 PM, Lee Howard wrote: I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. Interesting. I am forced to (only somewhat facetiously) ask: Why are *you* standing up, facilitating discussion, if you are the editor? Shouldn't that be the chair's job? More seriously: Since we started this PowerPoint/Comments-at-the-mic thing oh so many years ago, doing document reviews in presentation form where the editor is the one doing the slides has created this problem. Perhaps a better mode would be for the editor to write up the list of open issues, have the chair project them if need be, and the editor can get up to the mic with explanations/questions as needed but otherwise remain seated so they can jot down the notes they need. I think I've done something like that a long time ago as an editor. Worth trying, I'd think. +1 More generally, every time I go to IETF I'm appalled that working groups have gotten into the habit of filling the time with PowerPoint presentations.[*] PowerPoint (and similar tools) should be used sparingly, if at all. Most of the time, the projector should be off, or the screen blank. The point of IETF meetings is to facilitate discussion, not to show things to people. PowerPoint tells meeting participants to be passive, or that it's okay to take up space in the meeting room while browsing the web and not paying attention, not being engaged. Both of these are detrimental to IETF work. Keith [*] And yes, I realize that this has been the case for over 10 years, but I remember when it was not the case.
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 12/1/2012 6:40 AM, Keith Moore wrote: On 11/29/2012 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: F2f meetings are explicitly managed, with significant control of the room. Mailing list exchanges are typically not managed at all. Given the difference, it's not surprising that one proves more productive than the other. Please don't confuse management with encouraging productivity. In Atlanta I witnessed several f2f WG meetings that were explicitly managed, and completely unproductive. (Hint: anytime the vast majority of a f2f meeting is devoted to presentations, it's almost certainly useless. Even if there were occasions when participants were asked to hum.) Please don't use individual exemplars to try to prove a general case. The thread contained an assertion of /generally/ better exchanges f2f. I suggested some contributing factors in support of the claimed general case. Many email exchanges go extremely well. Many f2f go extremely poorly. human behavior. complicated. group behavior. more complicated. belief is simplistic causes or outcomes would be silly. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
At 9:48 AM -0500 12/1/12, Keith Moore wrote: On 11/29/2012 06:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 11/29/12 3:45 PM, Lee Howard wrote: I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. Interesting. I am forced to (only somewhat facetiously) ask: Why are *you* standing up, facilitating discussion, if you are the editor? Shouldn't that be the chair's job? More seriously: Since we started this PowerPoint/Comments-at-the-mic thing oh so many years ago, doing document reviews in presentation form where the editor is the one doing the slides has created this problem. Perhaps a better mode would be for the editor to write up the list of open issues, have the chair project them if need be, and the editor can get up to the mic with explanations/questions as needed but otherwise remain seated so they can jot down the notes they need. I think I've done something like that a long time ago as an editor. Worth trying, I'd think. +1 More generally, every time I go to IETF I'm appalled that working groups have gotten into the habit of filling the time with PowerPoint presentations.[*] PowerPoint (and similar tools) should be used sparingly, if at all. Most of the time, the projector should be off, or the screen blank. The point of IETF meetings is to facilitate discussion, not to show things to people. PowerPoint tells meeting participants to be passive, or that it's okay to take up space in the meeting room while browsing the web and not paying attention, not being engaged. Both of these are detrimental to IETF work. Keith [*] And yes, I realize that this has been the case for over 10 years, but I remember when it was not the case. When I started, WGs had projectors on, but were used as white boards, to facilitate discussion. The editor or anyone wanting to discuss an issue would write out the topics on a transparent sheet of plastic and project it. As the discussion developed, points would be written on it. It seemed to work. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
sadly, too many of us remember writing on scrolls of acetate. i imagine that some remember stone and chisels. ok, just for a gedanken experiment of one extreme, o remove the projector. [ omg! how will we show the note hell? ] o if there is an active draft that *really* needs f2f discussion, allocate time to discussing it. if it does not *clearly* need face-time, discuss it on the mailing list. o no one is at the mic in front because there is no mic in front. o if folk really need to see a diagram, that is why the $dieties invented laptops. the few people who do not have laptops have those new-fangled tablet thingies. o if someone has not read the draft, stay seated and shut up. o if someone wants to float a new idea worth describing, then give them five or ten minutes on the agenda to ask others for input, no preso/ppt. randy --- Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely. -- Vint Cerf
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
On 12/1/12 9:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: sadly, too many of us remember writing on scrolls of acetate. i imagine that some remember stone and chisels. At the last meeting, for my own stuff I went with the old one-slide approach. However, it did occur to me that by doing that the slide(s) lost its archival value (slim as that may have been) for people not in the room. Anyway. Not really sure what can be done about this - you can say discussion, not presentation until you're blue in the face and the outcome of all that will be a blue face but presentations during the meetings anyway. Ultimately I expect it comes down to how individual chairs want to run meetings. Melinda
Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
At 3:19 PM +0900 12/2/12, Randy Bush wrote: o if someone wants to float a new idea worth describing, then give them five or ten minutes on the agenda to ask others for input, no preso/ppt. Seeing something visual can help people grasp what someone is saying. Power corrupts; Powerpoint corrupts absolutely. -- Vint Cerf I love that quote of Vint's; it's been in my random sig tag file for *years* -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- A gaffe occurs not when a politician lies, but when he tells the truth. -- Michael Kinsley
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/29/2012 05:27 PM, Randy Bush wrote: As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good notes for me, because all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise. this gap makes me crazy, so much is often lost. but i do not think technology or process will close this hole. too much depends on fairly deep understanding of the subject. I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. +1. i can't take notes while i am trying to understand and think about the important semantics of a discussion, period. but much of this may be a personal failing, poor typist, rotting mind, ... I have this same issue as well. If I need to participate in a few discussions in the wg I decline to take minutes there as I do not believe I could do a good job with the minutes. For the record, as a minute taker, it takes me approximately 2x meeting time to come up with the minutes (I go back to the audio to fill in gaps, send individual mails to commenters to better understand their comments etc.) in addition to *almost completely* missing participation in the meeting. Thanks Suresh
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/29/2012 06:45 PM, Lee Howard wrote: As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good notes for me, because all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise. I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. FWIW, I've got used to listen to the audio recordings -- particualrly if I have not attended that meeting. At times, that has implied pre-processing the audio to increase the volume level or reduce the background noise. This has also proven to be useful, when, while there, I couldn't fully understand what the guy at the mike was saying, either because of low-volume, background noise, or a strong accent I wasn't used to. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
RE: Barely literate minutes
As a chair I always find it useful to go back and review the audio/Meetecho recording following the meeting and whilst doing so I might as well tidy up the minutes. The F2F meeting time can be quite hectic for the chairs and I tend to be concentrating on making sure that we stay on time and everybody gets a fair chance to say what they want to. So it is a must to go back over the recording and make sure I understood all the points people made during the meeting and I might as well check the minutes whilst doing so. Andy -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: 28 November 2012 21:46 To: Peter Saint-Andre Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work. I strongly disagree. Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst participants. If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of them, then the wg has bigger problems. d/ ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Barely literate minutes
- Original Message - From: Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com To: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:56 PM On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on the mailing list. It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I Pete I find that strange, not something I have ever seen (at least judging by the minutes of WG meetings which I have not attended). I see many WG which only make progress just prior to the closing of I-D submission up to the point soon after submission reopens, but that is not the same thing as making progress by meeting. And I do know of two or so WG which make progress at a meeting; but they seem to me to be WG that are too small to be a WG in the first place, where the work is driven by less than half a dozen people who gain much from meeting but where the breadth of experience and knowledge is missing and where the output is then, for me, suspect. WG of a substantial size seem to me to gain little or nothing from meeting, as the minutes show. Tom Petch think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Barely literate minutes
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: ... chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes. What I would prefer to see is that in addition to minutes there be separate messages posted to the list for each document, detailing the discussion of that document in the meeting and the changes that will result from the discussion. That can be posted by the chair, but I'd really expect it to come from a document editor. That makes sure that everyone can see what the document editor heard and intends to do with the document, and allows the working group to continue the discussion or say, Yes, that's what we heard as well, and it's fine. And I think that should be posted as soon after the meeting session as possible. It should definitely not wait for the document updates to be done, perhaps weeks later, after everyone who was there has forgotten the details. I think I have a topic to discuss at the App chairs lunch in Orlando. :-) Barry
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/28/2012 3:57 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: It's much easier to reach a consensus face to face, than on a mailing list. I think we have all seen this. F2f meetings are explicitly managed, with significant control of the room. Mailing list exchanges are typically not managed at all. Given the difference, it's not surprising that one proves more productive than the other. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: Barely literate minutes
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:12 AM To: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: ... chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes. What I would prefer to see is that in addition to minutes there be separate messages posted to the list for each document, detailing the discussion of that document in the meeting and the changes that will result from the discussion. That can be posted by the chair, but I'd really expect it to come from a document editor. That makes sure that everyone can see what the document editor heard and intends to do with the document, and allows the working group to continue the discussion or say, Yes, that's what we heard as well, and it's fine. As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good notes for me, because all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise. I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. As a working group chair I take my own notes, as backup to the note-taker, then merge the notes. Lee
Re: Barely literate minutes
As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good notes for me, because all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise. this gap makes me crazy, so much is often lost. but i do not think technology or process will close this hole. too much depends on fairly deep understanding of the subject. I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. i can't take notes while i am trying to understand and think about the important semantics of a discussion, period. but much of this may be a personal failing, poor typist, rotting mind, ... randy
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/29/12 3:45 PM, Lee Howard wrote: I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. Interesting. I am forced to (only somewhat facetiously) ask: Why are *you* standing up, facilitating discussion, if you are the editor? Shouldn't that be the chair's job? More seriously: Since we started this PowerPoint/Comments-at-the-mic thing oh so many years ago, doing document reviews in presentation form where the editor is the one doing the slides has created this problem. Perhaps a better mode would be for the editor to write up the list of open issues, have the chair project them if need be, and the editor can get up to the mic with explanations/questions as needed but otherwise remain seated so they can jot down the notes they need. I think I've done something like that a long time ago as an editor. Worth trying, I'd think. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Barely literate minutes (was: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 03:28 -0800 SM s...@resistor.net wrote: At 01:25 28-11-2012, John C Klensin wrote: This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and then uncritically relying on them. A Jabber log or real-time Etherpad may be, and probably is, a very helpful way to keep real-time notes within a meeting but some WGs have substituted nearly-unedited versions of them (especially the latter) for minutes. They are not minutes, certainly not minutes as Yes. Nobody likes to write minutes. Very few people volunteer their free time to do them (thanks to John Leslie for scribing the IESG minutes). When there is a discussion about producing minutes people come up with proposals for fancy tools. This is where someone says: Etherpad can do that. There is a moment of silence when somebody finds out that there's nobody using Etherpad to take notes about what's going on. Who would have thought that these fancy tools cannot work without people? :-) contemplated by RFC 2418, and I sincerely hope that the IESG and the community push back on those barely literate notes before there is an appeal against a WG decision or document approval that is based, even in part, on failure of the WG to comply with that 2418 requirement. The community is too lethargic to push back on those barely literate notes. One of these days there will be such an appeal. Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time, the minutes are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an exception to the principle that consensus has to be demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can determine what went on and why and hence whether the proposed solution or agreement is acceptable. If the WG cannot produce such minutes, then I think it is obligated to be able to demonstrate consensus from the mailing list discussions alone. Rather clear tradeoff, IMO. john
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time, the minutes are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an exception to the principle that consensus has to be demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can determine what went on and why and hence whether the proposed solution or agreement is acceptable. If the WG cannot produce such minutes, then I think it is obligated to be able to demonstrate consensus from the mailing list discussions alone. Rather clear tradeoff, IMO. ... and in those cases it is very important that the minutes (although I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as much of the arguments as possible. A reader on the mailing list will be utterly shortchanged if all he/she gets are conclusions and action points. In the past, individual WGs have argued about whether to include actual names in the meeting notes. Personally I'm in favor but even without them, at least the issues and pros and cons of a significant decision must be documented in detail. On the larger topic, and the relationship of the mailing list to the f2f meetings, here is a policy we tried in IntArea: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization Scott
Re: Barely literate minutes
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes: John Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time, John the minutes are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to John be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy John unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting John them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an John exception to the principle that consensus has to be John demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on John face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to John have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone John who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can John determine what went on and why and hence whether the proposed John solution or agreement is acceptable. If the WG cannot produce John such minutes, then I think it is obligated to be able to John demonstrate consensus from the mailing list discussions alone. Unfortunately demonstraiting discussions based on the mailing list alone also opens latitude for appeals. According to RFc 2418, chairs must combine the face-to-face discussions and mailing lists when judging consensus. If I as a participant believe that the face-to-face discussions when added to the mailing list discussion would change the outcome and the chairs say they are only considering the mailing list discussions, I have valid grounds for an appeal. Take a look at the discussions surrounding the IPv6 site-local appeal and particular at the responses generated at the IAB and IESG level for some of our historical thinking on this. Personally I'd strongly support an update to RFC 2418 that allowed|encouraged|required chairs to take a consensus call entirely to the list .
Re: Barely literate minutes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/12 4:28 AM, SM wrote: Hi John, [subject line mutated to reflect topic being discussed] At 01:25 28-11-2012, John C Klensin wrote: This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and then uncritically relying on them. A Jabber log or real-time Etherpad may be, and probably is, a very helpful way to keep real-time notes within a meeting but some WGs have substituted nearly-unedited versions of them (especially the latter) for minutes. They are not minutes, certainly not minutes as Yes. Nobody likes to write minutes. Very few people volunteer their free time to do them... IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC2g8QACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxDFACgnuyRJALETl7djVtK2kjQkzzK MVoAoJJcQcVA5jmk6UJg28DfFcPLlqRi =9cgO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work. I strongly disagree. Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst participants. If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of them, then the wg has bigger problems. d/ ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Barely literate minutes
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work. Dave I strongly disagree. Dave Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working Dave group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst Dave participants. Dave If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant Dave willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review Dave of them, then the wg has bigger problems. I'm mostly with Dave here. As a chair I(and AD) I've sometimes found it necessary to listen to an audio recording, and I'm really incredibly glad they're there. However, I don't want that to be the norm. I found audio recordings really helpful for example in dealing with appeals or threatened appeals.
Re: Barely literate minutes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work. I strongly disagree. Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst participants. If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of them, then the wg has bigger problems. In my experience, if a lot is happening in the WG session at an IETF meeting then it is extremely difficult for any one participant (or even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes. One example that I chaired was the second codec BoF in Hiroshima (and forget about the first one in Stockholm!). However, I think Ted Hardie and I did a pretty good job with the second httpbis session in Paris. YMMV. But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the minutes. ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on the mailing list. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC2k+0ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxlDgCg7oeaVnKObA7LW8aNyIpu7Lnn DnYAoOQc3TL4TQW+LZD566zseeH7OzKj =IolB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on the mailing list. It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Barely literate minutes
It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. i am not so sure it's a problem. email is a great miscommunication mechanism. so mailing lists go disfunctional far more easily than face to face. we're funny monkeys and seem to need physical presence. we'll see how we do with remote participation if we ever untangle that charlie foxtrot. randy
Re: Barely literate minutes
On 11/28/2012 2:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: In my experience, if a lot is happening in the WG session at an IETF meeting then it is extremely difficult for any one participant (or even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes. ... But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the minutes. The chairs are responsible for running things and ensuring fair and thorough process. Part of running things is delegating tasks. If someone signs up to take notes, then they ought to have responsibility to produce them, including reviewing the audio, if that's needed. The wg approves minutes, not the chairs. The chairs should manage the overall process, but I'll repeat: A wg needs to distribute its workload and if it can't do that, it has basic problems. ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even have meetings? Meetings are for more efficient discussion of particular topics, as well as the development of support for choices. But support is different than saying wg decision. To the extent that a f2f is making definitive decisions, then the IETF has become exclusionary against those unable to attend the f2f meeting. And no, remote participation is never going to be equivalent. Having to 'attend' at 2am remotely is not the same as attending at 10am locally. d/ -- -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Barely literate minutes
Hi Dave, At 13:45 28-11-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst participants. Yes. If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of them, then the wg has bigger problems. I listen to the audio as it allows me to understand the decisions and see whether the notes will give some random person an understanding of what happened. Regards, -sm
Re: Barely literate minutes
On Nov 28, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote: It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. i am not so sure it's a problem. email is a great miscommunication mechanism. so mailing lists go disfunctional far more easily than face to face. +1 It's much easier to reach a consensus face to face, than on a mailing list. I think we have all seen this. Bob we're funny monkeys and seem to need physical presence. we'll see how we do with remote participation if we ever untangle that charlie foxtrot. randy
Re: Barely literate minutes
--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 16:11 -0500 Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu wrote: On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time, the minutes are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an exception to the principle that consensus has to be demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can ... ... and in those cases it is very important that the minutes (although I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as much of the arguments as possible. A reader on the mailing list will be utterly shortchanged if all he/she gets are conclusions and action points. In the past, individual WGs have argued about whether to include actual names in the meeting notes. Personally I'm in favor but even without them, at least the issues and pros and cons of a significant decision must be documented in detail. Yes, exactly. john
