Abdussalam could usefully clarify whether he means "limit the presentation time of an I-D" or "limit the time spent on an I-D". But in either case, I think that I would prefer to see the opposite to such limitations. I would like to see technical topics that the WG needs to discuss receive plenty of agenda time (and that to include as much presentation time as is needed to seed the discussion and explain the authors' and others' positions on a topic), while I would prefer to avoid presentations of "this is the status of my draft" and "this is what my draft says" which can be mugged up in advance by reading the I-Ds. In fact, I am increasingly weary of catalogues of 5 minute presentations (to the point of wondering whether to fire chairs for this - RTG Area chairs take note! :-) I know it is "important" to be on an agenda if you are going to travel to an IETF meeting. I know it is "important" to show that you are making a contribution to the WG. But we have to get over it! Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: 24 February 2014 14:14 > To: l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx; abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and > face2face discussions > > On 2/23/2014 10:49 PM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > How many IETF meetings have you attended, and what experience do you base > this recommendation on? > ... > >> From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun > [abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: 24 February 2014 03:43 > >> To: ietf > >> Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face > discussions > ... > >> I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present per WG > draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy). > > > I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and even if it > weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of response. It doesn't > matter what the background is of the person asking the question. > > What matters is whether a rigid rule limiting time per topic is helpful. > > I think it isn't. Some topics require more. Some require less. > > The usual focus in IETF discussions about meeting management is, > instead, about /how/ time is used, rather than how much of it, notably > pressing to avoid tutorial or reportorial content, instead focusing on > discussion of pending items, such as those creating an impasse. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net