On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, I can't speak to the "important to be on the agenda" issue, but I will say this: F2f time is too valuable to be spent on issues that could have been brought up and (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list, as well as presentations that just serve to list "so I changed these 42 things since last meeting" summaries. They actually are extremely un-productive (although I do get a lot of email processed when sitting through one of those) ....especially since RFCDIFF is both more precise, and in colour ;) I'd probably prefer that all that could be (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list should be (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list - and, only if that fails is agenda-time for the f2f sessions warranted - and on issues, not on "documents". Useful use of f2f time is also "presenting brand new work" - but only once - to gain traction and such in order to take it onto the list. That said, IETF meetings do punctuate and foster some "sprints to finish things before a deadline", and so an overview of status probably is appreciated. I believe that this (in some WGs) is very well done by the WG chairs in their "WG Status" slot - but, even better, actually announced on the list in advance (on that note, I want to tip my hat to the ROLL WG chairs here: Ines and Michael have whipped their WG to submitting slides already, constructed a complete deck for the whole meeting, and prepared a handful or so of slides listing the "status": active documents, open issues, related, for the beginning - close to perfect organisation ...). One other thing that I occasionally find useful to spend F2F time on: summarising out-of-band discussions such as what often happens through IESG reviews, especially if managing to get the AD in question to show up and argue her/his points. Best, Thomas > 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 >