On 24 Jul 2019, at 10:11, Aaron Falk wrote:
I’m conflicted about this. Time used for what might be speech-making from one person, could be a more nuanced point from another. We keep saying we need to use our f2f time more efficiently. Well, sometimes that means breadth and a lot of people providing quick input and it also can mean depth and giving folks enough time to say something clearly. I think hard and fast rules like fixed time limits will prevent the latter (from both ends of the room).
We fully agree on that. What we might not agree on is the value for the large number of listeners in the room spending time listening for whether a particular long-winded speaker is actually going into depth on something that has not already been said, either earlier in the mic line or in the extensive ietf@ list discussion that has already happened. Some of us prefer to optimize for that much larger set of listeners, particularly in light of the fact that the mailing list will certainly be a good way for new points brought up succinctly tonight to be discussed more fully.
Restricting speakers' time when there are a lot of contributors does not mean not hearing what they have to say; for many of us listeners, it in fact can mean exactly the opposite.
--Paul Hoffman
