> On 2020-04-18, at 17:47, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/18/20 11:04 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> I think there's general agreement that at least some presentations are useful (thanks, Carsten) while others are bad (thanks, Keith). But I don't think we can agree that ALL presentations are useful or ALL presentations are bad. > > I think this misses the point, and is part of why I think the discussion was framed unhelpfully. Quality of presentations is not the issue I'm concerned about. Of course not. The highest quality presentation about pickling beets (or the exact shape of 8P8C sockets in network gear) would a “bad presentation” in the context of the WGs I’m interested in. > The issue is whether the use of f2f meeting time to do presentations is a wise use of that very expensive time. Yes. And most people agree there is no answer to that question unless you consider whether a specific presentation actually helped advance the business of the WG. (Note that there are also useful and bad discussions, same thing.) > I presume the WG chairs have already been deciding. But I certainly agree with having the presentations* I think you are making the common(*) mistake of confusing presentations with slide decks. > * IMO it's sufficient to prepare the slides in advance, ideally with accompanying notes, and make those available for download. I am not asking speakers to make video presentations available in advance. A narrated slide deck can in itself already be a good presentation (while a slide deck usually isn’t, unless it is not actually useful for a presentation). I think most people would think a “video presentation” entails filming the presenter while narrating, which is indeed of limited value in most of our meetings, all the time creating much more effort for the presenter. If we make watching these a prerequisite for meetings, I’m still serious about entrance exams. If not, they are not quite as useful as process confabulation would suggest they *should* be. Grüße, Carsten (*) Common at least since Microsoft decided to call slide decks “presentations”, which is probably an indicator for the most striking symptoms of Powerpoint’s failings.
