On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
The current arrangements are bogus.
Either cross-WG and cross area participation is useful or it is not.
Case One: Cross area participation is considered useful.
Make time for tutorial and introductory presentations because they are essential if there is going to be cross-area presentation.
Case Two: Cross area participation is not considered useful.
Make WG sessions a day long and schedule 40 at once, don't expect people to participate in multiple groups. Just like W3C does it.
I find tutorials very useful because most often the reason that a WG is not going anyplace or about to make a security blunder it is because the people involved really don't have a comprehensive grasp of what they are trying to achieve and how.
There are many people who are very much focused on IETF process and getting documents published. I don't care about the number of documents published, I care about the number of people who read and take note of them.
So for example we are holding an opening WG for Trans. Let us imagine that in one scenario we spend the whole meeting working on drafts and getting them completed a meeting earlier than otherwise. And in a second scenario we spend part of the meeting introducing the concepts and as a result get buy in from the Microsoft or Apple rep who wasn't otherwise planning to support TRANS because they had their own idea.
Which outcome is to be preferred? I know which I would take.