Subject: On WG meeting agenda formats

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:09:14 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Paul Hoffman was surprised by the format of the DNSEXT agenda, but
told me that the notation I used might be useful for others to
consider, so he suggested I post it here.

I put times on the agenda for different items.  The times are the end
time for that item.  Here's an excerpt:

Meeting to order                        lasts until 13:00
Note Well & Administration              13:02
WG Status Summary                       13:07
   (see detailed status report
   posted to namedroppers; 
   charter discussion later in the meeting)

Major Topic: Adding new DNSSEC algorithms       13:35

The idea here is to warn people in advance what time the mic will be
closed on any given topic.  It's easy to infer the start time of any
topic, by looking at the end of the previous item. 

I hope this is useful.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:53:52 -0700

>topic, by looking at the end of the previous item.

This could indeed be useful for WGs that typically blow off the agenda timings. It might even be useful for WGs that need multiple slots but could maybe fit into a single 2.5 hour slot if the WG was forced to stick to the agenda better.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:11:38 -0400

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:53:52AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> This could indeed be useful for WGs that typically blow off the
> agenda timings. It might even be useful for WGs that need multiple
> slots but could maybe fit into a single 2.5 hour slot if the WG was
> forced to stick to the agenda better.

I've also found it helpful in other meeting contexts, when one has a
participant who likes to take a long time to make a presentation.  But
you do have to be ruthless about sticking to the times; without a
meanie chair to keep the schedule, no notation will help.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:11:31 -0400

Hi,

I do thank Andrew for posting. I enjoyed considering his alternate
approach.

I personally do not prefer it to the traditional format.

It makes it harder if the session time changes, which hopefully would
not be very often. This reminds me of hard-coding values into
software.

It makes it harder to change presentation order if such is desired by
presenters or the WG during agenda bashing.

It makes it harder for presenters to recognize in advance "wow, I only
have 5 minutes"

I think if one presenter runs long, then the next person is cut short;
if the first presenter runs short, the next presenter gets more time.
I don't find that flexible. If somebody runs short, I would rather see
the time collected at the end for open questions, not assigned to the
next presenter (the more cynical side of me sees an opportunity for
abuse). If somebody runs long, I would rather see the open questions
at the end of the session shortened, not the next person's
presentation.

Most rooms do not have a clock on the wall, so presenters would need
to wear a watch and synchronize it with the enforcer at the start of
the meeting to know how their time was progressing. I think the
enforcer will still need to say "1 minute left", but eill have to
calculate it form the current vs scheduled clock time. 

I see a lot of downsides and not much benefit to using this system in
the official agenda.

I think the chair/enforcer can make their own
mike-time-cutoff-schedule when the meeting starts, while the rest of
the WG can use the typical duration approach, which is think is easier
for most purposes. Others might differ.

Andrew, thank you for sharing the idea. 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 1:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: On WG meeting agenda formats
> 
> Dear colleagues,
>