On 31/07/2013 15:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there
is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in
On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life
that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group
of 100 people,
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM,
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
So that implies to me that we should use our session time extremely
efficiently, always finish sessions early (to facilitate time for ad-hoc
I agree with some of your points, thanks, comments below,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/a-diverse-ietf/
Also, I wanted to let everyone know that tomorrow in the Administrative
Plenary, Kathleen Moriarty and
IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for presenting is the
problem or boring factor. I mentioned before that we need short
presentations 5 minutes, and more discussions.
AB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47
I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*,
there is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in
through meeting sessions and discussion lists. So I agree with Keith that
meeting sessions have low discussions, and may discourage remote
participants
comments below
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
written words are usually better understood than
There are occasions when presentations are appropriate, but they should be the
exception rather than the rule or default assumption.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
IMHO, The presenters are MUST, but the time channel for
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there
is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in
through meeting sessions and discussion
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
The hall conversations and side meetings will continue to be immensely
valuable. But working group sessions can, and should, also be
Hi Barry,
Sorry for long meesage,
I will give you a real example which I experienced that includes my request
regarding a WG ietf draft that has no presenter but two people in the WG
that want discuss it in meetings as below real story. I want to confirm my
statement of hidden
Hi Keith,
On 31/07/2013 18:35, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's been pointed out before that in a group with very
diverse languages, written words are usually better
understood than speech. It's a fact of life that you can't
have a full-speed
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's hard to tell how many of them
would be participating if the meeting were more useful, but
the very fact that the room contains so many nonparticipants
is itself a deterrent to getting work done in the meeting.
If nothing else,
I have to say that I was very impressed with how the oauth
session went. There was minimal presentation and maximal
discussion, and the discussion was not interrupted until it
started getting circular.
But, I suspect that this is a reflection of the fact that
there's some substantial
On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It may be the case in some instances that if
it's going to be nothing but presentations there may not
be a need for a working group to meet at all.
+1. If nothing else, when a WG agenda starts to shape up like this, this
should be a big
On 7/31/2013 4:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
While that is true, I think it misses the point of the objections to
the sit-and-watch-PowerPointTV.
First, I observe that we already_have_ a great deal of written words:
the drafts. I continue to believe that altogether too much time in WG
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
We have discussed diversity at the IETF at length. Yesterday, Pete Resnick
and I wrote an article about what we think the goal for the IETF should be,
as well as listing some of the early activities that we have taken at the
IETF. Our goal is
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
But earlier today I realized that the problem isn't just the cost of
attending
meetings - it's the value that we get in return for those meetings.
I've been
taking notes about how ineffectively we use our meeting time. Most of
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Rooms are set up not to facilitate discussion, but to discourage it. The
lights are dim, the chairs are facing forward rather than other participants,
the
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
Great message. One idea:
WG meeting sessions aren't scheduled to encourage discussion, but to
discourage it. At meeting after meeting, in several different areas, I
see the lion's share of the time devoted to presentations rather
On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
(approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'discussion
frameworks', rather than 'detailed
On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
(approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be
On 31/07/2013 05:47, Bob Braden wrote:
On 7/30/2013 9:35 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Easy fix: 'slide' (well, nobody uses real slides anymore :-) rationing.
E.g. if a presenter has a 10 minute slot, maximum of 3 'slides'
(approximately; maybe less). That will force the slides to be 'discussion
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:38:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It's been pointed out before that in a group with very diverse languages,
written words are usually better understood than speech. It's a fact of life
that you can't have a full-speed cut-and-thrust discussion in a group
of
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization
26 matches
Mail list logo
