At 15:00 -0500 3/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:
Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous
feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said
(roughly, although I don't recall "don't participate") those
words early in the session. Whether that feeling is correct or
not, there are other WGs with the problems that one faced last
week.
Well, I will neither confirm nor deny because I don't raise specific
examples as an accusation in public, but only to server as a data
point. (If the data is inaccurate, then that ought to be dealt with
publicly.)
Perhaps the words "don't participate" weren't said or insinuated, but
I do recall hearing something to the extent that caused me to feel
unwelcome (mentally) and I opened my laptop to read email in protest.
Using the one I have in mind as an example...
* The topic tends to draw flies and an assortment of
ogres and trolls, most of the latter groups on the
assumption that anyone who can use systems based on a
protocol is obviously qualified to comment on the
protocol.
In this case I consider myself a fly. I don't have the heft to be an
ogre on the topic, and I'm disciplined enough not to post on the
topic.
And the WG was very much in need of the kind of discussion that
actually occurred: by experts in the specific area or the areas
immediately surrounding it, who were familiar with prior
discussions and the documents, and who could focus in on
specific issues rather than implicitly asking for tutorials that
could easily take up the entire available time. There had also
been a decision that the WG would concentrate on seeing if it
could develop a particular approach leading to Experimental
protocols, so there is little interest at this time in "what if
you did something completely different" discussions. The result
was one of the better sets of discussions I've seen in a WG
meeting in some time, so there won't be any apologies for the
strategy.
If it's the case that this is what the WG needed, then there isn't
anything to fix or anyone to reprimand. "In that case."
But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the mass
gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review. The
discussion in this case may have been needed by the core members of
the WG, however, this was done forfeiting the opportunity cost of
interacting with a wider circle of people. I.e., the room and time
slot (which was changed to avoid a conflict) could have been put to
more general use - and use an interim meeting or mail thread for the
focused discussion.
Again, the above isn't a "shot" at the particular meeting, but back
to the observation that IETF meetings are held to provide cross-area
review. If a WG accidently makes progress at the time, well, that
has to be brought back "to the list" anyway.
regards,
I do want to make one other point, and this is reflective of the
particular meeting...not having visual materials at all can be a
problem just when considering the bridging of English dialects and
accents. "Visual material" need not be slide-ware, I've been in
meetings where an open file in VI was used to record ideas, a la a
white board.
PS - To give an example of what I consider a working dynamic:
A few IETF's ago (just to separate the example from current day), I
was working on a group document in need of interaction of about 5-10
core addicts. We got a separate room, closed it (invite only),
hammered out details for a few hours on a Tuesday of the IETF.
(I.e., we didn't burden the IETF with this meeting.) At the general
session of the WG, Wednesday or Thursday, I went up and presented the
"suggestions" of the closed room to the general audience. Once 2 or
3 of the issues hit the light of day, they were soundly rejected,
others were accepted - all of this eventually caught on the mailing
list. All the issues/recommendations of the addicts were up on
slides - to show the precise nature of the wording of each.
Note that the "closed" nature of the meeting did not mean any closed
door decisions, negotiations, nor deliberations. Anything/everything
drained from the room was put before the open assembly. The closed
nature meant that we just dropped all the formalities and didn't
worry about keeping to a time limit on anything.
What I thought was interesting was that the general audience
participation was far more diversified than I would have thought. As
in - what did it mean to "ban" things in the protocol, a question the
addicts took for granted. We did benefit from cross-area review then
while also showing marked progress during the week. BTW, that was
the last time the document was discussed in an open session before
going to the IESG, i.e., it was just what was needed.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Nothin' more exciting than going to the printer to watch the toner drain...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf