It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that most of the meeting has not read most of the drafts let alone the latest version under discussion. There is a fundamental IETF tenet that nothing is explained but there is a false assumption that the people in the meetings have read the drafts. Whenever I've seen the chair ask how many hve read the draft, it is usually < 5%. I think this is a key issue but the solution is not obvious. Nobody can read the number of drafts that are issued for a meeting. Not even for the subset of attended WGs. Other organizations have proponents explain what they are proposing. IMO this leads to a better quality of discussion. But this limits the number of topics that can be worked on in a week to far less than the IETF tries to cover. Steve Silverman > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf_censored-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ietf_censored-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > Behalf Of Margaret > Wasserman > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:10 AM > To: Dave Crocker > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: improving WG operation > > > > >People can and do use powerpoint slides in many ways. > Some folks will rework > >text in real-time, based on interaction with the > participants. Some folks > >just talk their slides rather than actually engaging with > the participants. > > > >A thing to keep in mind is that slides and the jabber > activity can be > >incredibly helpful to folks for whom English not their > native language. > > > >I think that, in fact, the issue is not > powerpoint-vs-no-powerpoint. I think > >it is exactly and only the concern you raise: meetings > need to be for working > >group interaction. If that is the clear goal and if the > meeting is run with > >that goal enforced, then none of the trappings matter. > > I completely agree with this. And, I've been to plenty of > non-interactive lectures that didn't involve any slides. > > Dave, do you have any thoughts about how we can change the IETF > culture from presentation to interaction (with or without slides). > This is something that the IESG has been talking about, > among others, > but I'm not sure that we've come up with any really > concrete ways to > provoke/encourage this change. > > Margaret > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through > ietf_censored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which is a sublist of > ietf@xxxxxxxxx Not all messages are passed. Decisions on > what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML > Administrator (ietf_admin@xxxxxxxx). > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf