Subject: A thought about agendas.....

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:24:48 +0100

I've noticed on some WG lists a note that says something on the order of 
"calling all agenda items - if you want something on the agenda, send it in 
now" - with no further info.

I just wondered..... is this really the best way to make sure the important 
work gets the most time on the agenda?
I mean - if the WG chair(s) already knows what the charter of the WG is, 
what documents are in active development, and what the important issues 
with them are, shouldn't the WG chair be able to write a proposal for an 
agenda without asking for (randomized) input, and then say "what else do we 
need to talk about?" to the WG?

I think this has something to do with WG chairs and empowerment......

OTOH, ANY agenda that is sent out to the WG and posted on the Web ahead of 
the meeting greatly increases the chances for success (I think!)

                 Harald

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:35:41 -0500

Harald,

The CCAMP chairs solicit requests for agenda time before each IETF. 
Some requests for agenda time are clearly appropriate, and they are 
honored. Some are less appropriate, for any of the following reasons:

- the requestor has not submitted a draft
- the requestor has submitted a draft that 
  is not within the WG charter
- the requestor submitted a version-00 draft, 
   but not early enough for people to have 
   read it or discussed it on the mailing list
- the requestor has submitted a draft that is 
   otherwise deficient

In these cases, the chairs communicate privately with the requestor,
identifying the problem and encouraging the requestor to try again
after the problem has been remedied.

Unfortunately, it took each of the chairs one meeting to realize that 
they weren't obliged to honor every request for agenda time. Maybe
we could make this part of WG Chair training.

                                            Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 3:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: A thought about agendas.....
> 
>

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:37:07 -0800

Harald,

I put this into the maximum openness category, kind of like asking if
there are any questions at the end of a talk.  I go out of my way to
talk to authors and people with work that needs to be talked out at the
meeting.. They get a specific invitation to talk and as much time as I
can give them.

At the same time, I always open it up for "random" talks in case there
is new work that people are conducting that I am not aware of (also
things like implementation reports, problems with current work etc.)  I
do this before I propose the first agenda so people don't feel left out
if there isn't time for "random" presentations.  I also like to ask
before scheduling so I know if I need a simple one hour slot with work I
know about, or if there is a need to get a 2 hour slot (or two slots)

There are two very powerful powers that working group chairs get that
need to be handled in a very open process so there aren't accusations of
favoritism.  Scheduling, and declaring consensus.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: A thought about agendas.....

"calling all agenda items - if you want something on the agenda, send it
in 
now" - with no further info.

I just wondered..... is this really the best way to make sure the
important 
work gets the most time on the agenda?
I mean - if the WG chair(s) already knows what the charter of the WG is,

agenda without asking for (randomized) input, and then say "what else do
we 
need to talk about?" to the WG?

OTOH, ANY agenda that is sent out to the WG and posted on the Web ahead
of 
the meeting greatly increases the chances for success (I think!)

                 Harald

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:44:49 -0800

Harald-

Is your comment that you are surprised that there isn't a strawman
agenda proposed at the time the chairs ask for additional items?  If
so, I agree that it's a lot more constructive to ask "is this
complete?"  than "what should we talk about?"  (This is why we insist
on a draft before adding items to meeting agendas, right?)

--aaron

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I've noticed on some WG lists a note that says something on the
> order of "calling all agenda items - if you want something on the
> agenda, send it in now" - with no further info.
> 
> important work gets the most time on the agenda?  I mean - if the WG
> chair(s) already knows what the charter of the WG is, what documents
> are in active development, and what the important issues with them
> are, shouldn't the WG chair be able to write a proposal for an
> agenda without asking for (randomized) input, and then say "what
> else do we need to talk about?" to the WG?
> 
> OTOH, ANY agenda that is sent out to the WG and posted on the Web
> ahead of the meeting greatly increases the chances for success (I
> think!)
> 
>                 Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:58:13 -0800

> on a draft before adding items to meeting agendas, right?)

you said it better than I did. Thanks!

I see Bill's comment on "openness", though..... if the WG isn't cohesive in 
its understanding of what's important, I can see that the WG chairs' coming 
up with a strawman agenda could be seen as "forcing" the issues.

(Sometimes I worry that I see too *few* objections when I propose something 
- the three first theories in my mind are 1) I'm perfect, 2) people aren't 
paying attention, and 3) people don't think their objections will be paid 
attention to - of the 3, I think the first one is the most unlikely one :-)

                      Harald

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:21:26 -0500

I prefer to send out an agenda and ask what I missed.  One
general rule of thumb is that if something hasn't been
discussed on the mailing list it's going to be hard to
justify spending meeting time on it.

Melinda

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:49:36 -0500

At 14:58 2003-03-15, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>I see Bill's comment on "openness", though..... if the WG isn't cohesive 
>in its understanding of what's important, I can see that the WG chairs' 
>coming up with a strawman agenda could be seen as "forcing" the issues.

I usually ask for Agenda items before ID deadline, and that is to force
the publication issue. Working group documents automatically get agenda
slots before non WG items.
The call for agenda items mainly draws in non WG items and new drafts.
Your suggestion that the call for items contain a skeleton agenda is
good one. Put that in the WG training manual.

If you want to be radical, require a draft agenda along with the agenda
requests. This will allow AD's better to figure out how long/many
slots a WG needs/deserves. It would be nice for if the IETF WG
pages contained pointers to agenda's and proceedings of the last
few meetings as well as the agenda for the upcoming one.

         Olafur

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:51:35 -0800 (PST)

If we ever have a tidal wave again, like the tidal wave that was
SubIP, this may be the most important thing to tell new chairs
before the wave crashes down!

IMHO, of course...

Spencer

--- Ron Bonica <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
> we could make this part of WG Chair training.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:09:30 -0500

At 9:24 PM +0100 3/14/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>important work gets the most time on the agenda?
>I mean - if the WG chair(s) already knows what the charter of the WG 
>is, what documents are in active development, and what the important 
>issues with them are, shouldn't the WG chair be able to write a 
>proposal for an agenda without asking for (randomized) input, and 
>then say "what else do we need to talk about?" to the WG?
>

In PKIX we solicit agenda items from the WG because it allows us to 
allocate small blocks of time to brief new items, info from other 
standards activities related to ours (e.g., from ETSI or consortia 
test activities), etc.  We always give priority to ongoing standards 
track activities, but even here a solicitation to the WG is a good 
way to confirm who plans to attend a specific meeting and to prepare 
a presentation.

Steve