On 4/18/20 12:05 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
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 don't know who "most people" are, but I don't think you've established
that. And I think it's still missing the point somewhat. Say a chair
decides that a particular presentation is likely to be useful at
advancing the business of the WG. The important question then
becomes, should that presentation take up precious f2f WG meeting time
that could otherwise be used to identify salient issues or get closure
on some issues? Or would it suffice to ask participants to view that
presentation outside of f2f meeting time, and free up that time to
engage in discussion with the hope of getting closure?
I generally view the task of a chair in planning f2f WG sessions at a
plenary meeting as: How to get closure on as many important/thorny
issues as possible, during that week of opportunity for high-bandwidth
interaction? And that involves making use of not only f2f meeting time
but also the time between meetings.
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 have rarely seen a face-to-face or videoed narrated presentation, on a
technical subject, that the same information couldn't be conveyed in
about one-sixth the time it took to watch the presentation, simply by
outlining the high points in text or as images or maybe an occasional
animation. There are exceptions, of course. But again, what makes
the f2f meetings worth having is interaction, not one-way
presentation. The ability of participants to ask clarifying questions
or point out problems is useful, as is the ability of the speaker to get
verbal and nonverbal feedback from the audience. But that
face-to-face time is very expensive, both in terms of what it costs the
participants and/or their sponsors, and also in terms of what it costs
the WG in its ability to get timely closure and publish documents while
they're still helpful to the Internet community. So it makes sense to
use that time judiciously. If WG participants were expected to read or
watch brief presentations prior to the f2f meetings, and perhaps to
submit feedback in writing before the meetings, thus freeing up meeting
time to actually answer those questions and have discussions, would that
allow WGs to get more done in the time they have? Based on my own
prior experience, I believe it would. But it might require the
community to get used to doing things a bit differently.
Of course in the near term most of this discussion is moot, since it's
likely to be well over a year before it's safe to travel and meet again.
Keith
