On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:55:40PM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote: > That seating change would go hand-in-hand with another proposed change, > namely, elimination of 10-minute "here's what's changed from -0x to > -0x+1" talks with no useful purpose. Have the WG decide before a meeting > which are the top issues to work through at the meeting, each issue gets > 30 minutes for discussion, i.e., you get 2-5 issues per session depending > on the slot length. FWIW, we aimed to do this in DNSEXT in SE, going so far as to eliminate the slot for "WG status" reports. We sent an update to our mailing list before the meeting, and solicited discussion in the meeting (but got none). The result was that 15 minutes that in the past had been devoted to administrivia was freed up for substantive discussion. I think Chairs could help greatly just by directing presenters not to outline changes between versions unless there is actually something still controversial about the change. It's all supposed to be confirmed on the mailing list anyway. Apart from not boring the people who actually came prepared to work (since they'll already know about the differences), this strategy could also serve to shorten the required time for meetings, which might then reduce the number of slots needed, which would possibly reduce some of the scheduling trouble. I look forward to the future day when there is an experiment to shorten the Friday schedule, ending sessions at lunch time. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf