Sent from my iPad > On Feb 24, 2014, at 15:13, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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 Dave, While I agree mostly on the line of your response I think that it was not a "question" but formulated as an "advise" and coming from someone that we all know have not planned any wg agendas. Of course this does not disqualify him, but if he is at odds with experienced people we should take such advice with more than a spoonful of salt (is that an English proverb). /Loa >