Subject: Re: [IAB] WebEX in WG Sessions

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 14:13:01 -0600

On Apr 15, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Ed Juskevicius wrote:

> I think we need more running code with webex in an IETF setting to progress this discussion.  To facilitate this, you may want to arrange training for a Sunday afternoon session in July along the lines of "How to use Webex in an IETF meeting room (with poor acoustics and lots of microphones) with the least amount of pain".  Things to watch for should include:

As I explained before, I don't think the primary problem is training. I think you have to figure out how to make it work work before you do any training. I am doubtfully is possible to make it work without relaxing some of the current constraints. 

I have no idea what you would tell people in training to make it work and yes, I have had the training from the webex people that help organize large conferences. For the record, last time I talked to them the answer I was given was each speaker should have an individual microphone and the moderator should control the microphones such that only one was unmuted at a time. If you think you have the training figured out, I would be happy to find another webex person and have the two of us take a dry of the training then go and see if we could make a large conference work. 

So seriously, please make sure you have something that works before you go and train a bunch of people on a procedure or process that will not work. All evidence suggests what we have been doing has not worked for allowing remote people to speak. 

Cullen

PS -  given travel budgets and desire to have diversity of opinions that is just not large vendors but also includes small companies, users, operators, academics, open source people, and so on .... I think we have to accept that many people will not come to all the meetings but will still want to participate. I have no idea on how to find a balance that makes this possible while at the keeps much of the non tangible benefits of hallway dissections, sharing dinner with some new folks and so on.

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 14:06:20 -0700

Cullen said:

"PS -  given travel budgets and desire to have diversity of opinions that is
just not large vendors but also includes small companies, users, operators,
academics, open source people, and so on .... I think we have to accept that
many people will not come to all the meetings but will still want to
participate. I have no idea on how to find a balance that makes this
possible while at the keeps much of the non-tangible benefits of hallway
dissections, sharing dinner with some new folks and so on."

[BA] Agree with Cullen that figuring out what works has to come first.
Remote presentation is an issue that is here to stay, and so we will gain
additional experience with it over time.  While we seemed to have figured
out audio streaming (sound quality has been excellent the last few IETFs),
remote presentation is trickier.  One thing I've noticed in my own remote
presentation during IETF 76 was that the audio quality was markedly better
going IP end-to-end, as opposed to going through (multiple) PSTN gateways.
So maybe we could do a trial using SIP or XMPP/Jingle. Just a thought.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:11:51 -0400

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:13:01PM -0600, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> PS - given travel budgets and desire to have diversity of opinions
> that is just not large vendors but also includes small companies,
> users, operators, academics, open source people, and so on .... I
> think we have to accept that many people will not come to all the
> meetings but will still want to participate. I have no idea on how
> to find a balance that makes this possible while at the keeps much
> of the non tangible benefits of hallway dissections, sharing dinner
> with some new folks and so on.

Before I start, I want to emphasise that I'm trying out an idea here,
and not stating a position that I hold strongly.  I very much would
appreciate counter-arguments.  I've been trying this sort of thing out
in DNSEXT (along with Olafur) and it seems to work for us; but then,
we're nominally asleep and not doing anything.

Maybe part of the problem is that the meetings are hard to justify
because they're expensive and therefore long.  Maybe we could improve
the affordability of the meetings by making them much more focussed,
thereby making them shorter.  (I'll leave aside other arguments about
area- or topic-only meetings.  This is more like "take back Friday
afternoon."  Like all silly ideas, I'm starting small.)

Fully half the time I have spent in most IETF meetings has been eaten
up in long presentations by people reading to me the slides they have
on the screen, which slides summarize the various changes and so on
between versions of a document.  (I myself have no doubt been guilty
of this.)  I submit that, if people haven't bothered to read the
document versions or understand the differences between them, such a
presentation is vanishingly unlikely to galvanize them into action.

I propose that the face to face time should be devoted primarily
either to presenting large issues that need complete hashing out, or
else to establishing the discussion base for further discussion on the
mailing list, or else to one-minute pleas for assistance.  "Lightning
talks" of the sort encountered in the free software conferences should
be the norm, not the exception.  The number of actual 20 minute slots
on an agenda that are not "5 minutes, strictly limited, of
presentation; 15 minutes of discussion" should be small, too.  WG
progress and administrivia presentations should just not happen:
that's the kind of thing that can be completely covered in a page and
a half on the mailing list, and should not take up precious time in a
meeting.

I wonder very much when I see WGs with four or five hours of meetings,
because I simply don't believe there really is that much to cover that
couldn't better be addressed on the mailing list, or even a web page
(or, mirabile dictu, by participants reading the nominal work items of
the WG.  But now I'm just being cranky).  It'd be interesting to limit
speakers to five minutes and one slide, for example: think of how
carefully you'd have to tailor your message, and think how much you'd
find yourself saying, "I outlined the details in the mailing list
message with Subject: foo."  Such a tactic would have the additional
benefit of pushing detailed discussion back onto the list where it
belongs.  And then only the really contentious, "we have to work out
in person" issues would be in the face to face meetings, and meeting
time would be much more productive.

I know everyone thinks they run their WG meetings tightly, but what if
we tried out a rough limit for one IETF meeting: no WG takes more than
(say) two (maybe three, not more) hours in the week.  Every chair
warns the WG of the policy at the end of IETF-N, and warns the WG that
the _only_ thing we'll do at IETF-(N+1) is accept presentations on hot
issues that have no traction on the mailing list.  Issues are treated
by (some queue mechanism), so that there's a hard limit on how many
issues are handled: once all the time on the agenda is gone, that's
it.  Moreover, issues aren't allowed to come back: if you can't thrash
out enough to resolve the issue, you need to do it in the hallway or
something until you have a new issue.  The idea here is to force this
back into small groups of people concentrating on the protocol, and
not rooms of 40 people with four active participants all playing to
the audience.  Chairs would be unpopular, because they'd have to say
no to things that someone wants, but maybe we need to do more of
that.  

I think to make this work broadly, though, we'd need a significant
number of WGs to participate, in order to see whether this works well
as a norm.  The IETF meeting seems to be expanding, and I have a
feeling we may be growing to fit the available resources.  We could
put ourselves on a diet, and see whether something happens.

Please feel free to point and laugh at me.  I don't know whether any
of this would work; it's just a half-baked idea.

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:30:29 -0400

> of this would work; it's just a half-baked idea.

Can't do it--what you said seems exactly right to me.   I just finished listening to the audio for the DHC meeting at IETF 77 so that I could flesh out the meeting notes our minutes taker did, and there were huge swaths of the meeting that were giant snooze-fests for exactly the reason you've given.   I think there's some value when one working group is liasing with another to having a pithy one-minute precis, but these five and ten minute slots with a dozen powerpoint slides really do seem to be a waste of time for the actual participants in the meeting.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:41:01 -0400

[correction]

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:11:51PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> because they're expensive and therefore long. 

While this arrangement of cause and effect is amusing even if true, I
meant it the other way around.  Sorry.

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 17:57:36 -0400

> meant it the other way around.  Sorry.

I'm not buying this.

I do agree that there is stuff we could do without in the meetings.
But unless it eliminates the need for the meeting altogether, I don't 
see that as substantially reducing the cost of attendance.

For one thing, these meetings are attended by reps from multiple 
continents. So a big chunk of people will incur 2 days of travel time. I 
would guess the *average* travel time is somewhere between one and two 
days. Its hardly worth incurring that for a one day meeting - its hard 
to imagine an ietf that was less than two days long. Add in the travel, 
and the cost of the meeting itself, and you won't be able to reduce the 
cost by as much as a factor of two.

And in reality the organized sessions are in a sense just the excuse 
used to justify the travel in order to participate in the informal 
discussions. Again, maybe you could take a day or two out, but is that 
the problem?

I fantasize about an ietf meeting done via telepresence or 2nd life. The 
webex is possibly a step in that direction. What's not so clear is how 
good that has to get before it is "good enough" to substitute for the 
travel. I think we have a long way to go before we reach that point.
Even then, to get the benefit you would have to lock yourself in your 
telpresence environment for multiple days.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 00:04:14 -0400

Hi Andrew,

Your idea is pretty much an old one I've heard lots of times before. I
used to believe it was very important. But I'm no longer so sure it
matters all that much.

The pre-meeting deadlines are critical to getting most things done in
the IETF WGs. Hall\way conversations are very important. And when a WG
does debate an important matter in depth in person when there is
conflict, that's usually very helpful. But there has always been a
significant amount of "wasted" time at WG meetings and, really, it
hasn't seemed to cause that much of a problem...

Currently, WGs can have two meeting slots (which could be two hours
each) at their own request and need AD approval for more. I'd have no
problem with making the limit beyond which AD approval was required
be, say, two hours of meeting time (which could be two one hour
slots). WGs that really have lots of active drafts, active
participants, and issues should have no trouble getting AD approval if
they really need more time.

More productive WG meetings are great to strive for but not an area
where I expect to see perfection.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 08:38:35 -0400

Hi,

I suggest you develop a tutorial on how to use presentations
effectively at meetings.
I recommend you ask to present such a tutorial at the WG Chairs lunch,
since the chairs should get the slides in advance and, hopefully,
review them in advance, and it is usually the chairs who request that
somebody put together a status slide deck to go over the diffs between
document versions. Yawn.

The tutorial should be very focused on IETF effectiveness, and it can
point out issues 
such as long slide presentations about document diffs, how to do
summary slides for 
people who are attending just for purposes of getting a summary of
progress being made, reading from the slides, etc.

I think you need to know your audience to be effective. I found that
having two sessions was helpful. The session agenda explained the
difference between the two sessions. 

The first session would be focused on giving a status report to the
community regarding the progress being made by the WG. Slides were
designed to be a general summary of what had been accomplished and
what needed to be accomplished yet, in general terms. There was no
assumption that the audience had read the drafts or followed the
mailing list. Many IETF engineers think we should not cater to people
who attend to determine the status. Posting such a summary to the
mailing list doesn't reach this audience. But those are paying
customers - they pay to attend the IETF meeting, and they pay for
products that use our standards. They come to learn what standards are
in development, when they might be ready, and what their company needs
to do to prepare for it. The session could also be used to get
feedback from the user community. Powerpoint and graphics can be
useful for summaries (a picture is worth a thousand words), as is
limiting the number of slides allowed, and the number of minutes to
present. 

The second session would be the engineering session (like the olden
days) where F2F discussions are important to resolve the outstanding
issues. The agenda explanation woul dmake it clear that this was going
to be very detailed technical discussion, and if you hadn't read the
drafts then you might want to skip that session. We even worked to
schedule the engineering session on Friday to scare away the
less-than-committed onlookers. The people who attended these
engineering sessions did not need to worry about educating the
audience about the topic to be discussed; attendees were expected to
have read the draft sand followed the mailing list, so they could do
"real" work in the session. And real engineering work would get done.

Dividing the session to address different audiences helps to reduce
the number of mind-numbing "status" presentations that show the
differences between documents. That mind numbing detail might belong
in the engineering session, but probably is more effectively handled
on the mailing list, not in a F2F session.

I think this approach to dividing the status reporting from the
engineering sessions could also be optimized by having the progress
reports to the community for each **area** bundled into one session,
and maybe be given in a Monday session, so the rest of the week can be
used to do engineering. Of course, this could impact the revenue
generation capabilities of our meetings if the casual onlookers only
needed to attend one day. And, of course, we could just put the pretty
summary presentations online so casual onlookers didn't even need to
attend.

So are you willing to consider developing a tutorial for WG chairs
about how to effectively use meeting time and effectvely use
presentations in those meetings?

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 5:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: A scratch proposal on meeting time (was: [IAB] WebEX 
> in WG Sessions)
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 09:30:00 -0400

This discussion seems to mix several issues, and to misstate certain things.

1) No matter what structure we use for meetings and meeting discussion, 
some noticeable set of attendees at any given WG session will be unhappy.

2) Working groups go thorough phases.  There are times in the work where 
the discussion is abstract and vague.  There are times when it deals 
with interesting and challenging technical issues.  There are times that 
it has to deal with minutiae.  (And other phases.)  That one is in some 
specific phase, and needs to get working group agreement on a particular 
aspect, sometimes means that it feels like a waste of time.

3) Yes, it is very important that we structure working group sessions so 
as to make sure that we use the face-to-face time for things that can 
leverage that time to advantage.  But, pretending that everyone, or even 
everyone who matters, has read the drafts, and remembers all of the 
on-list discussions, is simply fooling ourselves.  A certain amount of 
background, and summarization of the current situation is often very useful.

4) Sometimes what looks like controversy in planning turns out to be 
dull and "wasteful."  Sometimes what looked like an almost useless 
agenda slot prompts discussion that highlights an issue.  Trying to get 
too efficient is probably not a good idea.

Yours,
Joel

PS: As far as I can tell, there were no olden days.  At least as far 
back as 1990, sessions were a mix of status, boring summaries of 
accepted ideas, and interesting / new work along with controversies.

David Harrington wrote:
>...
> issues. ...

---

From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:23:32 +0200

> dissections, sharing dinner with some new folks and so on."

We've been using GotoMeeting for a full-day interim working group
meeting yesterday, with about 8 people in the room (using a
speakerphone) and between 3 and 6 people on the conference bridge (some
of them using PSTN access, some of them using the built-in VoIP). 

Quality of sound was quite good - i was participating remotely myself,
and could always follow what was spoken in the room. The only issue was
that there was that discipline of taking / releasing the microphone
could have been better - but i think that this is an issue that's not
just limited to virtual WG sessions :-)

Slides sharing / document editing worked like a snap. What i'm missing
in their service is recording of the full session - it would be nice to
get a "video" of the full session, including the shared applications and
document editing action. 

Alex

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 12:09:13 -0400

> get a "video" of the full session, including the shared applications  

In my professional work, I use GoToMeeting 4.1 a lot (they're a  
client), and am fairly pleased with it.

I could ask how to record if that is still a problem.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:08:25 -0400

> presentations in those meetings?

I suppose I'd be willing, but for two things.  First, the response to
my remark has been fairly negative, so I don't really think there'd be
interest in this.  Second, I'm not actually sure I'd be the right
person to offer such a tutorial: I'm not the world's most galvanizing
public speaker, and I don't have long experience as a WG chair.

If one were to prepare such a presentation, I wonder whether the right
target would be the Sunday tutorials, anyway?  I know that when I used
to go to the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, Damien Conway almost
every year gave a talk about this, and it was always popular and
well-attended.

A

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

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:44:37 -0400

I'd start with the WG chairs lunch, because the WG chairs have a great
deal of influence over how presentations are used in their sessions
and can evangelize the message. Secondarily, they can be a good source
of feedback (and pushback). After a successful WG chairs lunch
presentation, then you could redo the presentaton as a user tutorial.

dbh

> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 9:08 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: A scratch proposal on meeting time (was: [IAB] 
> WebEX in WGSessions)
>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 12:56:06 -0700

So far, the webex exercise has been run as an expirement,

If you want non-experimnetal webex service, working with the IAD on an
SLA so that AMS or some other contractor has something to work against
that would be greatly appreciated.

I have other things to do during working-group meetings than babysit a
bunch of confernce calls.

joelja

On 05/05/2010 01:13 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> I think we need more running code with webex in an IETF setting to
>> progress this discussion.  To facilitate this, you may want to
>> arrange training for a Sunday afternoon session in July along the
>> lines of "How to use Webex in an IETF meeting room (with poor
>> acoustics and lots of microphones) with the least amount of pain".
>> Things to watch for should include:
> 
> 
> As I explained before, I don't think the primary problem is training.
> I think you have to figure out how to make it work work before you do
> any training. I am doubtfully is possible to make it work without
> relaxing some of the current constraints.
> 
> I have no idea what you would tell people in training to make it work
> and yes, I have had the training from the webex people that help
> organize large conferences. For the record, last time I talked to
> them the answer I was given was each speaker should have an
> individual microphone and the moderator should control the
> microphones such that only one was unmuted at a time. If you think
> you have the training figured out, I would be happy to find another
> webex person and have the two of us take a dry of the training then
> go and see if we could make a large conference work.
> 
> So seriously, please make sure you have something that works before
> you go and train a bunch of people on a procedure or process that
> will not work. All evidence suggests what we have been doing has not
> worked for allowing remote people to speak.
> 
> Cullen
> 
> meetings but will still want to participate. I have no idea on how to
> find a balance that makes this possible while at the keeps much of
> the non tangible benefits of hallway dissections, sharing dinner with
> some new folks and so on.
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 13:06:09 -0700

> accepted ideas, and interesting / new work along with controversies.

I can recall back to the point where people were still occassionly
drawing foils on sheets of acetate (1997) what changed if anything isn't
the content of the meetings, but rather that amount of front end-loading
necessary to get a meeting started,

jabber scribes, remote audio participants, webex slide sharing, remote
presenters, making sure all the presenters can project etc.

15 minutes for a room change isn't really enough if you have to do all
of these things and then start and end on time.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:36:20 -0400

--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:44 -0400 David Harrington
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'd start with the WG chairs lunch, because the WG chairs have
> a great deal of influence over how presentations are used in
> their sessions and can evangelize the message. Secondarily,
> they can be a good source of feedback (and pushback). After a
> successful WG chairs lunch presentation, then you could redo
> the presentaton as a user tutorial.

If there is sufficient consensus that this sort of presentation
is a good idea and it is done at a time that doesn't interfere
with IAB commitments (the WG Chairs lunch would be ok), I'd be
willing to gather ideas from others and take the lead in
presenting this.   However, I've been known for a fairly
ruthless attitude about WG time and, relative to those who
believe in a "nice" IETF, I am much more willing to cut people
off who are taking up time disproportionate to what they have to
say or who are getting off in the weeds.  If the ADs prefer a
kinder and gentler attitude, then you should probably decline
this offer or consider it a recruitment mechanism for someone
with a different point of view.

    john

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 01:02:08 -0400

Hi,

What the ADs prefer has nothing to do with this decision.
Anybody can volunteer to develop such a presentation and ask the EDU
team to present,
whether at WG chairs' lunch or Sunday tutorial. 
Hopefully the EDU team will ensure the presentation is reasonably
balanced and representative of consensus.
Hopefully a presentation at the WG chairs lunch would elicit feedback
about whether it represented consensus.

dbh

> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:36 AM
> To: David Harrington; 'Andrew Sullivan'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: A scratch proposal on meeting time (was: [IAB] 
> WebEX in WGSessions)
> 
> 
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 02:38:11 -0400

--On Monday, May 10, 2010 01:02 -0400 David Harrington
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Anybody can volunteer to develop such a presentation and ask
> the EDU team to present,
> Hopefully the EDU team will ensure the presentation is
> reasonably balanced and representative of consensus.
> Hopefully a presentation at the WG chairs lunch would elicit
> feedback about whether it represented consensus.

Different perspective: as this discussion has wandered through
many subtopics, my impression is that it --and the proposed/
likely presentation-- is going to move pretty heavily into the
topic of "how should WGs get their work done", which segues
rather directly into "how much can a WG chair push back on those
who want to 'present'" and "how much can a chair suppress
off-topic discussions" ... in both cases before some AD decides
that the consequences imply enough lack of consensus to make the
WG's conclusions/ recommendations invalid.  Having been through
what amounts to a round of the latter with a WG and a chair who
pushed a lot harder than I am inclined to, I'm not making any
presentations that give guidance in the area until there is at
least informal agreement within the IESG that it is a good thing
to do.  I may be willing to take my chances, but leading others
into areas that will get them into trouble does not seem wise.

   john

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 07:57:11 -0400

> into areas that will get them into trouble does not seem wise.

John,

There is no one solution fits all, different working groups
have different needs. The needs of a working group change over
time.

One of the bigger challenges for chairs is to analyze the needs of the
working group and adopt the management style to the needs at all times.

If there is going to be presentation on this topic I would propose
that we nominate 2-3 chairs from well run working groups and have them 
explain how they run their groups and WHY, asking them to tell us about
both things that worked and failed.
Followed by Q and A.

	Olafur

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 22:05:23 +0300

I also agree that one size may not fit all working groups.

I would also suggest that while education on the right way to run things 
would always be useful, lack of knowledge is not the primary problem. I 
would guess laziness to push back or desire to be nice is a big factor. 
Even bigger issue is insufficient or late preparations to the meeting. 
If the chairs do not spend the time well enough in advance to figure out 
what the meeting should focus on, the end result will likely be going 
through all work items in sequence with a fixed amount of time allocated 
to each. Or if the authors do not come back in time with their proposed 
slide decks and discussion proposals, the chairs do not know before the 
meeting that they should take corrective action. If the authors do not 
update drafts in a timely manner, part of the meeting may be spent on 
unnecessary repetition of the old issues (or even presentations on how 
editorial problems will be fixed). If the audience has not paid 
attention on the mailing list, you are unlikely to see good discussion 
of the key issues.

Fixing these issues is harder than giving more education.

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 22:11:51 -0400

--On Monday, 10 May, 2010 07:57 -0400 Olafur Gudmundsson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> that we nominate 2-3 chairs from well run working groups and
> have them explain how they run their groups and WHY, asking
> them to tell us about

Sounds good to me.  Some sort of panel discussion might be even
better than a presentation.

    john

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:53:16 +0200

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:12 AM
> To: Olafur Gudmundsson; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [IAB] A scratch proposal on meeting time (was: 
> WebEXin WGSessions)
> 
> 
> 
>  have them 
> >explain how they run their groups and WHY, asking  them to tell us 
> >about  both things that worked and failed.
> > Followed by Q and A.
> 
> Sounds good to me.  Some sort of panel discussion might be 
> even better than a presentation.
> 
>     john
> 
> 

+1

I also believe that a panel discussion on the lines of 'how to run a
successful WG' may be a better format to start with. We may derive from
there that future training for IETF presentation skills may be useful
but let this rather be a conclusion rather than the premises. 

Dan

PS - now we can stat to debate about 'what is a successful WG' :-)