|
I’m not an IETF WG Chair, but I have attended IETF meetings for some time and have many years of experience chairing in other organizations.
A significant part of the job of a chair is facilitating sound progress of chartered work. Issues that haven’t been resolved on the list may be complex ones that take more
than 10 minutes to understand and get to the heart of differing viewpoints. It is often more efficient to devote more meeting time to getting such issues sorted rather than to distribute meeting time evenly across drafts. Also, when a group has multiple drafts/projects to progress, it is often more efficient for the group to concentrate on drafts that are foundational (i.e. that need to be
settled so that other work items can progress) or that are close to done in order to finish those and be able to concentrate future efforts on the remaining items. An even arbitrary distribution of time doesn’t serve those purposes. Pat From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun Dear IETF WGs' Chairs, 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). We need to use more input and have more face2face (F2F) discussion in our meeting. I remember
we discussed this before but it will be nice if we know what chairs are thinking before few days of the meeting. Meeting time is money and that we need to improve the use of IETF times within F2F WG discussions and decisions. If an author cannot describe issues of draft in 10 minutes then it will be difficult for the WG listeners to discuss and make
decisions within another 10 minutes per item. Please comment. Best wishes, Abdussalam WG Meetings are needed for group interactions and group decisions not individual presentations or individual decisions. |