Hi Arturo,
At 15:56 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
described/proposed in the document. Accepting the document assuming that
chairs are going to turn bad ideas to good in my opinio is not good.
My guess is that you will be approached to chair a WG at some point.
Regards,
-sm
One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is
cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is
security. Another one (also for my personally) is internationalization.
Another, more vague one, is general architecture. Early running code is
very often (
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 bu
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
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
unacceptab
>>> 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
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
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 actua
> 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
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
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
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
On 12/2/12 3:24 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
So am I. I have no problem with a working group adopting a document
as a tool in the development of their deliverables, either as a place
to keep notes or as a document with a separate edit
Perhaps I did, but I am talking about Working Group Drafts
"1.1. What is a Working Group Draft?
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet Drafts (I-D). Working groups use this mechanism for
producing their official output, per Section 7.2 of
On 12/2/12 2:56 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> That's is true. But I would prefer to accept a I+D as WG item until
> we are sure that we are somehow committed to follow the path
> described/proposed in the document. Accepting the document assuming that
> chairs are going to turn bad ideas to good i
> What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the path
> of the bad idea to become RFC somehow or at least to waste a lot of
> time fighting against it.
we used to call that 'discussion' as opposed to ppt presentation. and
discussion is what wgs were for, see other thread.
randy
On 02/12/2012 21:52, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
>> are willing to support it as RFC.
> i thought that was wglc. but i am a dinosaur.
>
> randy
What I meant is that accepting the I+D as WG document clears the
path of the bad idea
On 02/12/2012 21:50, Randy Bush wrote:
>> So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
>> just to have a structured discussion?
> and so that the chairs have the option of changing editorship to turn
> them into good ideas.
>
> randy
That's is true. But I would prefer
> I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
> are willing to support it as RFC.
i thought that was wglc. but i am a dinosaur.
randy
> So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
> just to have a structured discussion?
and so that the chairs have the option of changing editorship to turn
them into good ideas.
randy
Well, I think we shouldn't.
I would prefer to have the I+D as non-wg item until we are sure that we
are willing to support it as RFC.
/as
On 02/12/2012 20:36, SM wrote:
> At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmfu
At 12:25 02-12-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for
the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Yes.
I'll comment on draft-crocker-id-adoption-01.
Section 1 is fine. I'll suggest not amending the BCP (see the last
round of RFC
On 12/2/2012 10:47 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended to
document common practice in the adoption of working group drafts:
Title: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption
So it is ok to have bad ideas as I+D, possibly harmful for the Internet
just to have a structured discussion?
Regards,
as
On 02/12/2012 18:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/2/12 11:18 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate cr
Hi John,
At 09:21 02-12-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
(d) Their reading-English is much better than their spoken
English and they have trouble keeping up even if (b) is quite
moderate.
Yes.
But can be considerably aided in many cases by written material
(slides, summaries, or both) well in adva
On 12/2/12 11:18 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria:
>
> - Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured
> discussion in the WG.
I'm actually not sure about that. It seems to me that in the past
we've had wor
In Section 2.1, I would add in specifically-inappropriate criteria:
- Accept an I+D for the merely fact to have a more structured
discussion in the WG.
Regards
::as
On 02/12/2012 16:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/2012 8:00 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I led the discussi
On 02/12/2012 18:06, Melinda Shore wrote:
...
> 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
On 12/02/2012 02:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/2/12 10:18 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 12/02/2012 01:41 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I think you'd end up with 2 days of presentation sessions and the
remainder of the meeting given over to presentation sessions.
In which case the ADs should fire th
On 12/2/12 10:18 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 01:41 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> I think you'd end up with 2 days of presentation sessions and the
>> remainder of the meeting given over to presentation sessions.
> In which case the ADs should fire the chairs on the spot.
If that's the sol
On 12/02/2012 01:41 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/2/12 9:37 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
Perhaps roughly the first 2(?) days of an IETF meeting could be largely
devoted to presentation sessions, and the remainder of the time to
discussion sessions.
I think you'd end up with 2 days of presentation se
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
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 bette
On 11/28/2012 8:00 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I led the discussion in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic.
Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#
Folks,
There is now an Internet Draft, based on Adrian's's slides, intended to
document common practice in the adopt
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 PowerPoi
On 12/2/12 9:37 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> Perhaps roughly the first 2(?) days of an IETF meeting could be largely
> devoted to presentation sessions, and the remainder of the time to
> discussion sessions.
I think you'd end up with 2 days of presentation sessions and the
remainder of the meeting
On 12/02/2012 01:06 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
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
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 o
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
On 12/02/2012 12:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:19 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
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
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 speak
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
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:19 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
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
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
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 08:35 -0800 SM
wrote:
>
> It is not about different dialects of English. There are
> people in one part of the world who speak English. There are
> people from other parts of the world which do not understand
> that English because of:
>
> (a) The way Englis
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
At 05:40 02-12-2012, Keith Moore wrote:
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
It is not about different dialects of English. There are people in
one part of th
>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
On 12/02/2012 10:03 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore
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'
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 09:53 -0500 Keith Moore
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
On 12/01/2012 11:51 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process
>> change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen,
>> so fewer words is better.
>
> I think that's actually a pretty
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
Hiya,
On 12/02/2012 12:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> > I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code
>> > more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not
>> > try it and see?
> Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's
> a terrible idea.
--On Sunday, December 02, 2012 08:40 -0500 Keith Moore
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.
>
>
Hi Brian,
On 12/02/2012 08:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Another condition for a fast track must be the absence of
> unresolved IPR disclosures. I can see a big risk here - that
> someone will use the fast track procedure to game the IPR
> disclosure rule. First, release your open source code
Hi Hector,
On 12/02/2012 12:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> This proposal sounds interesting but couldn't it run into conflicts when
> there are competition in running code? Who's running code do you fast
> track? How does it apply in the protocol updates area, i.e. BIS work?
Good point. I clar
Hiya,
On 12/01/2012 09:06 PM, SM wrote:
>
> Could you ask an AD to sponsor this draft and generate the Last Call?
Bit early yet. I'd like to know what folks think and hopefully
improve the thing via others' good ideas.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> P.S. Make the draft experimental. Add a one-year
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
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 d
Another condition for a fast track must be the absence of
unresolved IPR disclosures. I can see a big risk here - that
someone will use the fast track procedure to game the IPR
disclosure rule. First, release your open source code, using
an open source licence that doesn't assert the absence of IPR
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 p
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
