On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > >>>>>> "Yoav" == Yoav Nir <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yoav> In keeping with IETF traditions, I'm putting some XML where my > Yoav> mouth is. > > Yoav> Here's a -00 draft about this. > > Yoav> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nir-non-wg-presentations-00.txt > > I like it... I would add: > - the room should be a regular room (mp3 stream) > - the secretariat should consider having one fewer regular track > on Monday/Tuesday. One of the goals is to get these non-WG items out of people's lunch hours, so that we can spend them on what lunch hours should be spent: lunch, and wondering why someone's walking around with a note stand. So yes, I agree that they should be scheduled at the same time as regular meetings. The reason the presenter should be allowed to pick the slot within the sessions is so that his presentation doesn't collide with a WG session where all his target audience is going to be. Reality is though, that the Friday and late Thursday slots are not popular, because some people want to go home either early Friday or even Thursday night. Unless they actually make it harder for working groups to meet, it won't be easy. > I like that you've insisted that the slides be uploaded. > (Honestly, can we please use PDF for all slides?) Some people like animation and flying bullet points. Once I tried to give a presentation written in OpenOffice, then saved as .ppt. Instead of flying in, the bullet points appeared, then flew out. Since then I always export to PDF, but some people like the animation. > I would further suggest that in order to sync the mp3/foils, that the > presenter be reminded that many will be looking through the presentation > later on, from the "archives" Just as true for WG meetings. > You have said that this track is not for things that belong in WGs. > I want to take the opposite view: a lot of presentations are in WGs, > should I think, not take the time of the group. The availability of this venue, would tempt WG chairs to tell people to "take it to the Berlin track", for things they don't like. But if something is a certificate profile, or an update to PKCS #something, it should go in PKIX, rather than act as though there's no WG working on PKI. I don't think our aim should be to gather support, so that later we can shove the work item down the working group's throat, or else use this as a light-weight working group, giving a presentation with an update since last meeting. Hmm, I'll explicitly prohibit this in the next iteration of the draft. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf