I think *side meetings* are killing IETF, I call it *hidden meetings*, there is no input for IETF when we have side meetings. The input to IETF in through meeting sessions and discussion lists. So I agree with Keith that meeting sessions have low discussions, and may discourage remote participants to discuss as well.
I think why you feel that side meetings are valuable, is because it has short presenting, each person talks for less than 5 minutes and discussion time is interesting. So you and Keith seem to be having same aim to exclude long presentations of issues. Furthermore, I will add that we need not to only ask questions and discuss with the authors/presenters, we should be discussing to the IETF WG with the meeting. This way the habit will be not boring and ALL will be attracted.
AB
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The most valuable part of IETF meeting is and has always been the hall
conversations and side meetings
Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But earlier today I realized that the problem isn't just the cost of attending
> > meetings - it's the value that we get in return for those meetings. I've been
> > taking notes about how ineffectively we use our meeting time. Most of what
> > I've observed won't surprise anybody, but here's a summary:
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> > Rooms are set up not to facilitate discussion, but to discourage it. The
> > lights are dim, the chairs are facing forward rather than other participants,
> > the projector screen (not the person facilitating a discussion, even if someone
> > is trying to facilitate a discussion) is the center of attention. The chairs
> > are set so close together and with so few aisles that it's hard for most of the
> > attendees to get to the mics. The "microphone discipline" which was intended
> > to facilitate remote participation ends up making discussion more difficult for
> > everybody who has paid to be on site.
>
> I think that these physical things are something that we can do some
> experiments about.
>
> > Well, please excuse my candor, but f*ck habit. We can't be effective
> > engineers if we let bad habits continue to dictate how we work.
>
> I agree.
>
> > For 80% of most WG meetings, the lights should be bright, the participants
> > should face each other. If there's a person facilitating the discussion that
> > person should be the center of attention. If we're going to use microphones,
> > the rooms should be set up to allow everyone in the room to have easy access to
> > them. We should have several microphones, again facing each other, so that
> > several people can have a conversation without everyone having to queue up.
>
> Can we please try this in Vancouver?
> This would work especially well for BOFs.
> Maybe we can start there.
> Chairs will need training as *facilitators*
>
> > And maybe, in addition, we need to provide better places for people to hang out
> > and work while trying to get an opportunity to interact with specific people.
> > The terminal rooms are generally placed in out-of-the-way corners, but the most
> > effective places to interact with people are in the hallways.
>
> I agree.
>
> --
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
> ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>