On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> You can go, read the poster and formulate opinions and questions independently of anyone else, including the author. If there is a time when the author is supposed to be present, you can then go back and clarify any issues. You can't establish any consensus this way, but it can be efficient at resolving issues. > > I'm attaching a chart that may be useful in this discussion. Using the rsync-able directory of all IETF ID's since 1992 (btw, I don't believe the database before about 1996, but 14 years is still interesting data), I did a brief scan of the arrival of drafts to the Internet Draft directory. The blue line shows the arrivals by month; the red bar graph tries (somewhat crudely) to aggregate drafts-by-IETF-meeting. > > I'm envisioning the process and requirements of the poster sessions. In terms of process, today if I post a -00 draft to a working group, I can generally get discussion during the coming IETF meeting. What I think this suggests is that instead I would show a poster at the coming meeting and get working group discussion the meeting following. I'm not sure I like that implication. > > I'm also thinking about the implications of 500-or-so posters. In terms of simple floor space, if we presume a poster and the conversation in front of it occupy a 3 meter-by 3 meter (10' X 10') space, we need 4500 square meters or 50,000 square feet of floor space to park them in. Time-wise, we need to assume that 1/3-to-1/2 of people who attend an IETF meeting will, instead of chairing or presenting in sessions, be out standing by their posters - and not wandering around looking at other posters. The mechanics look a little daunting. > > Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic conference in which grad students are advertising for a professor that might be interested in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund their research. This is an SDO, and internet drafts are what any other SDO calls "contributions" or "work in progress". I would far rather have people who ant to talk about something contribute an internet draft on their topic, and talk with other people about their ideas - whether on working group lists or other places. For those of us that *do* participate, it seems to mostly work. Dear Fred; I think that you are correct in your logistics. However, I understood the current proposal was to use posters as an alternative to Bar Bofs, which would be a lot fewer in number. I would not support any plan to (say) double the IETF's throughput by the use of posters. Regards Marshall > > <a.csv.pdf>_______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf