On 4/2/12 17:36 , John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, April 02, 2012 14:32 +0000 Ted Lemon > <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > >> In the case of DHC at least, the metrics are pretty accurate. >> There was barely time in the wg meeting to actually have any >> meaningful discussion about anything, so each presentation >> wound up being "sales pitch, a few comments, chair interrupts >> for time, next steps, next presentation." It wasn't really a >> good use of f2f meeting time, and I'd like to do it >> differently at the next IETF, but I don't really know how, >> because there weren't a lot of presentations that the working >> group shouldn't have heard, and we got one of the nice like >> 2.5h time slots. > > Ted, > > When the pressure for more and more meeting time is considered > in the light of my experience of the last week, I've started > wondering whether it is time to move toward a fundamental > change. Suppose that, instead of having presentations at the > IETF meetings, we did the following: > > (i) Encourage presentations to be prepared as a sequence of > slides accompanied by either written narrative or audio (or > possibly video) and made available with a cutoff not later that > the cutoff for new I-Ds and ideally earlier. If people then > started discussing them on the relevant WG mailing lists, that > would strengthen the case for (ii) below.
What we've been encouraged to do, e.g. use the presentation/meeting cycle for the problems, not the material is fundamentally at odds with this approach. We're there to have a discussion and the slides are there to support that. they should not be there to imho to present the contents of the draft. We had the mailing list and the drafts themselves to form the framework for the meeting. > If we could get it into our collective heads that audio or video > presentations with pre-distributed slides might actually be more > effective, it might help in a lot of ways. As a quite bad amateur ietf video producer, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a few hundred hours per meeting of cooked slides and audio is not going to improve the productivity of the working groups unless you're measuring that per byte. > Conversely, if > people needed to show that they were going to be in front of the > room to get permission to travel to IETF, it would be, IMO, far > more helpful to all concerned to have that role be "lead > discussion of presentation and I-D" rather than "give > presentation". it should be today. > best, > john > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
