Subject: Re: participation in IETF meetings

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:10:07 -0400

At 10:24 23/10/01, Pete Resnick wrote:
>4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds of things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn. That's not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW INFORMATION presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to the topic has not been written up and posted to the list, discussion of that topic should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of a WG meeting should be without surprise.

        The above approach, implemented with commonsense and
reasonable flexibility for any special cases, would help make the
in-person IETF meetings much more productive, IMHO.  In the old
days, before PowerPoint, there weren't so many lecture-style
presentations -- lots more discussion and scribbling on transparencies
in real time...  

Entirely IMHO,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:46:28 -0400

>presentations -- lots more discussion and scribbling on transparencies

Not just your HO - several years ago the NY Times ran an
article on whether or not Powerpoint has debased public
speaking in general.  The article included a mocked-up
photo of Martin Luther King standing in front of a Powerpoint
slide projected onto a backdrop.  The title of the slide was
"I have a dream" and the body of the slide was "That dream
consists of:" and a bunch of bullet points.

Melinda

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:13:56 -0700

At 01:10 PM 10/23/2001 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in 
> your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present 
> introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds of 
> things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn. That's 
> not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW INFORMATION 
> presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to the topic has 
> not been written up and posted to the list, discussion of that topic 
> should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of a WG meeting 
> should be without surprise.
>

I tend to agree that WG meetings should not be turned into tutorial
sessions for newcomers or observers, but a well-designed slide
presentation can help focus WG discussion, and even speed it up.

I don't let anyone present a 'product pitch'  to the WG, but people present
new I-Ds (and new ideas) all the time, using slideware.  The fact is, most 
I-Ds
get posted at the last minute, and most WG members don't read them thoroughly
before the meeting. Individual submissions are not required reading anyway, and
WG drafts usually start out as individual drafts.

I don't miss the old days when most of the room waited while one person
at the front scribbled unreadable text on a blank transparency, and then
explained it to everyone (because nobody could read it). Powerpoint is
just another tool -- how a WG chooses to use it is up to the WG.

>[email-masked]

Andy

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:21:32 -0400

>speaking in general.  The article included a mocked-up

All generalizations oversimplify.

There are times for PPT'ing a subject, I've even used it as a technical
design tool.  There are times when PPT style is wrong, its horrible for an
academic-style lecture.  Overall I think PPT has helped more that it has
hurt.  But then again, IETF gatherings aren't about presentation but
interaction.

One of my soapboxes is that blind hatred of MS products is as determintal
as the products themselves.  ;)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: [email-masked]

You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:10:25 -0400

>as the products themselves.  ;)

I'm not sure what that has to do with the question at hand.
That the use of Powerpoint tends to lead to a uniformity of
structure and undermines the speaker's ability to improvise
to suit the context isn't the result of a blind hatred of
MS products (and I think you should reconsider your use of
the word "blind").  Have you ever *tried* to get someone
who's put together a PP presentation that's inappropriate
for a working group meeting to cut out the presentation
material and skip to the issues?

Melinda

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:07:33 -0700

> hurt.  But then again, IETF gatherings aren't about presentation but

I tend to agree. Many times have I been the victim of a random talk with
no structure whatsoever. What PPT does is allow the presenter to frame the
discussion. At the last IETF, I had a couple of slides simply outlining
remaining issues. Of course, I could have just rambled on the details of
the issue, but I think many folks appreciated being able to read it in real
time to refresh their memory. It was quick, and relatively painless. The end
result was a very successful resolution to all issues.

So as long as the chairs limit the content of the presentations, then PPT is
fine. btw, I now require that all presenters have their slides sent to me 
2 weeks prior to the meeting. Try controlling presentations when you don't have 
anything to review in advance.

Having said that, I do agree that presentations are bad, and technical
discussions are really what makes the IETF meetings productive.

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:26:20 -0700

> material and skip to the issues?

no because I've returned the PP to the author and asked him to get
to the point :)

PatC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:03:24 -0700 (PDT)

> material and skip to the issues?

I can't say I've had this particular experience, but on quite a few occasions
I've watched people try to use a PowerPoint presentation as a basis for some
other sort of talk. Usually it is all I can do to keep a straight face.

				Ned

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:06:07 -0400

I dunno. I've seen people successfully show a small subset of the
slides in a larger presentation.  And I've seen people successfully
use Power Point to take real time publicly displayed minutes recording
issues raised and tentative decisions made, although I don't try to do
that myself...

Advice is fine but I don't want there to be one set of mandatory rules
on exactly what format Working Group meetings can be and what software
people can use. If the WG memebers are happy and the WG is making
reasonable progress and following the current broad guidelines, what's
the problem?

Donald

From:  [email-masked]
Date:  Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to:  "Your message dated Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:10:25 -0400"
	      <[email-masked]>
To:  Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Cc:  Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Message-id:  <[email-masked]>
Content-type:  TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding:  7BIT
References:  <[email-masked]>
	     <[email-masked]>
	     <a05100312b7fb296b2c87@[216.43.25.67]>
	     <[email-masked]>
	     <[email-masked]>
	     <[email-masked]>
	     <v03130301b7fb63d4d10c@[65.174.249.227]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7BIT

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:50:23 -0700 (PDT)

> slides in a larger presentation.

And so have I. But I can only recall one case I'd call a success out of
the many times I've seen it tried.

And this isn't just a personal opinion. Some conferences have mechanisms for
audience feedback rating presenters. I've participated on panels at a bunch of
these, and when you're a panel speaker you get back the ratings for the entire
panel. One thing I've noticed quite consistently is that in the common case
where someone does a subset of a larger talk AND uses a fancy presentation
engine (it doesn't have to be PowerPoint), survey says that the results are
consistently pretty poor.

> And I've seen people successfully

And I once watched a guy give a demo of an animation package at SIGGRAPH and go
from blank screen to completed animation in 10 minutes. Unfortunately, it
wasn't so much that the package was that easy to use or appropriate to the
task, but rather than the guy using it was exceptionally quick and knew exactly
what he was doing.

> reasonable progress and following the current broad guidelines, what's

Nor do I. My goal was simply to support the opinion of others that while these
tools may work well in some cases, they don't seem to have the necessary
flexibility to be useful in the IETF, where we value the ability to adapt a
presentation on the fly more than we value cute animations.

				Ned