Subject: Can't upload anything to IETF 80 meeting materials

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:32:41 -0400

As the deadline for updated minutes approaches, I find that my
co-chairs and I can't upload anything related to IETF 80 to the
meeting materials.

We go here:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi
We pick "80" from the "--Select Meeting--" pull-down, and click "Open
this Meeting".
We get a page that says, among other things, "No working group or BOF
sessions have been scheduled yet."
We can't select our working group's session and upload updated minutes.

I put in a ticket to ietf-action on Monday [www.ietf.org/rt #37318],
but have had no response.

Is anyone able to access their IETF 80 sessions and upload anything?

Barry

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:51:10 -0700

Barry,

I had no trouble earlier this week,  and I can get to my w.g. upload page now.

Bob

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:24:57 -0500

I have the same problem for XMPP

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:38:09 -0500

> I have the same problem for XMPP

But I can, apparently, upload minutes for IETF81 :-)

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:09:31 -0400

> I have the same problem for XMPP

Marcia just let me know that she did something that she thinks will
fix it, and I've confirmed that it now works as it's supposed to for
me.  For you, too, Ben?

Barry

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:18:34 -0400

I was able to upload saag minutes for IETF 80 a couple of days ago.  I 
decided to pass on trying to upload them for IETF 81 ;)

spt

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:21:49 -0500

I got a response back from Marcia saying to try again. It seems to be fixed now.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Sean Turner wrote:

> I was able to upload saag minutes for IETF 80 a couple of days ago.  I decided to pass on trying to upload them for IETF 81 ;)
> 
> spt
>

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:58:10 -0400

Folks,

At IETF 80, meeting time was in short supply. Since meeting time is a finite resource, we need to think about how we manage it. The following are a few guidelines. Depending your area, your AD may be more or less strict about enforcement.

1) If your WG has nothing to discuss, don't schedule a meeting. (Some very healthy WGs don't meet at every IETF)

2) When allocating meeting time:

    - prefer WG work items to non-work items
    - prefer proposals that have demonstrated support on the mailing list to those that have not
    - prefer proposals that have been addressed by an ID submitted by the cut-off date to those that have not

3) Do not accept proposals that are clearly out of charter

4) Do not lower your standards for time allocation because your meeting agenda is empty. Better approaches are:
    - to end the meeting early
    - to move the meeting to a shorter slot
    - to cancel the meeting altogether

5) Be suspicious of version -00 drafts that are being presented in multiple WGs. While it is sometimes appropriate to present in two WGs, this is frequently a sign of WG shopping.

6) Monitor your WG mailing list and try to anticipate meeting time requirements. Schedule the shortest time slot possible.

                                                                       Ron
                                                                       /speaking as AD and curmudgeon

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:59:53 -0400

BTW, please feel free to add to these items of push back on them. 

                                       Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bonica 
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:58 PM
To: Working Group Chairs
Subject: Managing Meeting Time

Folks,

                                                                       Ron

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:41:04 -0400

Thanks, Ron, for a good set of suggestions.  I try to run my WGs'
meetings the ways you describe... though I can't say I'm always fully
successful.  But we try.

One thing I'd like to add relates to presentation slides.  There's
some push, here and there, for not having presentation slides at all,
and I can't agree with that.  I've been told many times by non-native
English speakers that having slides -- and especially having them
available in advance for review and possible translation -- really
helps.  But here's the thing:

I find it very frustrating as a participant to visit the meeting
materials site an hour before a session and find nothing posted there
yet.  And I find it frustrating as a chair to have presenters finally
getting their slides to me 30 minutes (or less) before the session.
So I generally require all presentation slides to be in to me by, say,
the Saturday before the IETF meeting (I set a later deadline, if the
WG meets late in the week).  No slides, you're cut from the agenda.
If we're all deadline-driven, then there's the deadline.

That gives anyone who needs it (including the many remote
participants) time to grab the slides and look them over.  It also
gives me a chance to look them over and sanity-check them, and, if
needed, push back on them -- too many slides for the time allotted,
inappropriate content (out of scope, or whatever), too much or too
little detail, etc.

Of course, exceptional conditions will get exceptions.  If something
blows up on the mailing list the Friday before the IETF meeting, we
may need late slides for that.  If someone can get draft slides in
early, but wants an updated version posted later, I'll usually accept
that, depending upon the extent of the changes.  We work together to
work it out.

No one has ever given me any problems with that.  When the requirement
and deadline are posted in advance, the folks who want to be on the
agenda always come through, and everyone is happier for it.

Barry

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:44:30 -0400

- prefer drafts that have been discussed on the mailing list and clearly
have issues that require meeting time to be resolved.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:49:09 -0400

On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 20:44 -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
> - prefer drafts that have been discussed on the mailing list and
> clearly have issues that require meeting time to be resolved. 
> 
Yes, definitely.  I generally refuse to allocate meeting time to new
proposals at all if they have not first been discussed on the mailing
list.  I also agree with pretty much everything Ron and Barry said.

-- Jeff

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:05:15 +0700

On 4/24/2011 12:49 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> list.  

OK, but I thought the important part was "clearly have issues that
require meeting time to be resolved", which I interpret as "no PPT
status updates".

...

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:30:41 -0500

>require meeting time to be resolved", which I interpret as "no PPT

Glen - I've heard you rant about "no ppt slides" before, and now 
you're saying "no ppt status update (slides)" - which is adding a 
qualifier I haven't heard before. Perhaps I've just missed this 
qualifier in the past.

Regardless, what exactly do you mean by "status updates"? Is it 
slides that say:

1) here's where this ID is at (currently)?
2) here's a review (set of slides)?
3) here's what's changed since the last version?

??

I'm all for generally preventing #1, but feel that #2 is appropriate 
for some slide decks, and #3 is fairly critical for nearly every slide deck.

James

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:49:24 -0700

> some push, here and there, for not having presentation slides at all,

+1

I'm willing to stipulate that powerpoint is (generically) evil, but
dicussing the  major points of a new draft, the results of testing or
the points under discussion is critical that you write them down.

So far since we added projectors I don't know of too many examples where
working groups with full agendas have not used them and I know of no
cases since we cot rid of the slide printer where someone has requested
an overhead so that they could draw on it with a grease pencil...

Twice, during IETF 80 I was in working groups where participants were
subjected to a powerpoint presentation where among other things minimize
the use of powerpoint was called out. At best that's is a ironic.

what we do need to do, and what I'm in favor of is the evolution of the
wg meeting activity so that it continues to meet the needs of the
working groups. I see abundant evidence that it is occuring in places
like v6ops.

I would hope that the results of experimentation with working group
process were widely adopted if successful, but I hope that the result is
descriptive rather than proscriptive.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:02:22 -0400

On 4/24/11 4:30 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> Glen - I've heard you rant about "no ppt slides" before, and now you're
> saying "no ppt status update (slides)" - which is adding a qualifier I
> haven't heard before. Perhaps I've just missed this qualifier in the past.
>
> Regardless, what exactly do you mean by "status updates"? Is it slides
> that say:
>
> I'm all for generally preventing #1, but feel that #2 is appropriate for
> some slide decks, and #3 is fairly critical for nearly every slide deck.

I'm a little confused.  I don't think document authors should spend time 
on #1, but [some/all] WG chairs do a WG status update that often 
includes where each draft is at.  Might not need slides for this but it 
still usually eats up agenda time.

spt

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 08:04:28 +0100

> still usually eats up agenda time.
My thoughts:

So (1) may be wasteful for those involved in the ID - but there again, 
part of the point of the face-to-face meeting is to encourage the group 
to need to understand the key issues in the drafts - and especially any 
newcomers who need at least foothold into the work.

Requiring pre-discussion of drafts on the list seems good practice to 
me. I'd like though to encourage the whole WG to look at the I-D and 
using effective ppt seems to me to be a good approach.

Gorry

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:25:22 +0200

> the points under discussion is critical that you write them down.

I'll note that especially for non-native English speakers slides are
often a strong visual aid. I for one benefit from being able to see on a
slide what is being said instead of having to rely on the articulation
of the presenter. Putting slides together also often forces people to
clearly state what it is that they are trying to bring across.
Powerpoint, as many inventions, can be used to the
good and the bad of humankind.... ;-)

Klaas

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:36:21 +0100

Klaas Wierenga wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
+1. Powerpoint is a tool, it needs to be used as appropriate.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:23:04 -0400

> for some slide decks, and #3 is fairly critical for nearly every

It seems to me one might ask, "Why is #3 important?  We have
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff."

Saying #3 is important is in effect conceding that people in the room
who haven't followed the draft and who haven't read it should
nevertheless somehow be brought up to date.  But if WGs are supposed
to be a mostly self-selected group of people interested in a common
set of documents that will provide some sort of utility to them, then
that ought to be unncessary.

I nevertheless cheerfully concede that I also normally think it's
important when I'm preparing something.  So why do we think that?

A

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

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:34:25 -0400

Agree strongly with Andrew here.

#1: Chair handles on the MAIL LIST.
#2: RTFM
#3: Read the list.

NONE of these activities belong in a face-to-face work group meeting.

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:40:22 +0700

> haven't heard before. Perhaps I've just missed this qualifier in the past.

No but just to be clear, I was just offering an interpretation of Scott
wrote; it seems to me that he went beyond "prefer drafts that have been
discussed on the mailing list" and added "clearly have issues that
require meeting time to be resolved".  If the presentation on a draft is
only a status update it seems highly likely that there are also no known
issues require meeting time to be resolved.

> 3) here's what's changed since the last version?

Yes, except that I'm not sure what you mean by "review".

> some slide decks, and #3 is fairly critical for nearly every slide deck.

Why is a slide more effective than diff for #3?

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:20:50 -0700

> important when I'm preparing something.  So why do we think that?

In WGs where there are too few people reading the drafts that are going into WG LC, there is a chance that doing a brief review of the status will cause someone to volunteer to read the draft when they might not have otherwise. I have seen this happen in the IPsecME WG, where we knew we had too few eyes on almost-done documents, and while touristing in other folks' WGs where the chairs were advancing documents that had only two or three people who had read them.

This maybe calls for a bit more planning on the part of chairs: have presentations for work items that actually need presentations in order to progress, and do one slide of status during the beginning-of-meeting review for the work items that are already sufficiently reviewed. We should have a good idea of which drafts fall into which categories at least a week before a face-to-face meeting.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:27:37 -0400

As a practical matter, if you do not spend some time in the presentation 
setting context, you will lose about half of your potential useful 
face-to-face participants.

Yes, I am guessing at the 1/2.  But folks are tracking a lot of things. 
  They need context.  They need the help remembering.  A diff is NOT the 
same as a meaningful description of what changed.

In general, I actually expect to see all three listed items included in 
a presentation.  I expect that to be covered briefly. (maybe 3 of the 10 
minutes.)
Among other things, if this is written in the slides, and the slides are 
distributed in advance, it just needs a few moments to bring folks up to 
speed.

On the other hand, if you only care about the folks who are devoted to 
just your topic, and not to anything else, I guess you can assume they 
have perfect memories and fully realized the import of what was being 
discussed on the list for the previous 4 weeks.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:29:19 -0400

> In WGs where there are too few people reading the drafts that are going into WG LC, there is a
> chance that doing a brief review of the status will cause someone to volunteer to read the draft
> when they might not have otherwise. I have seen this happen in the IPsecME WG, where we knew we had
> too few eyes on almost-done documents, and while touristing in other folks' WGs where the chairs
> were advancing documents that had only two or three people who had read them.

+1, emphasis on *brief* review.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:21 AM
> To: wgchairs
> Subject: Re: Managing Meeting Time
> 
> In WGs where there are too few people reading the drafts that are going into WG LC, there is a
> chance that doing a brief review of the status will cause someone to volunteer to read the draft
> when they might not have otherwise. I have seen this happen in the IPsecME WG, where we knew we had
> too few eyes on almost-done documents, and while touristing in other folks' WGs where the chairs
> were advancing documents that had only two or three people who had read them.
> 
> This maybe calls for a bit more planning on the part of chairs: have presentations for work items
> that actually need presentations in order to progress, and do one slide of status during the
> beginning-of-meeting review for the work items that are already sufficiently reviewed. We should
> have a good idea of which drafts fall into which categories at least a week before a face-to-face
> meeting.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 08:33:15 -0700

My view:

- AFAICT, meetings are not the exclusive place where any particular work 
gets done, *except* face-to-face realtime discussions

They are decidedly NOT places for resolution of decisions. Too often 
decisions happen at an IETF when those on the list are left out of the 
process.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone to NOT READ THEIR SLIDES. That's 
the greatest waste of time I've seen, IMO.

Joe

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:23:27 -0400

--On Monday, April 25, 2011 07:23 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Saying #3 is important is in effect conceding that people in
> the room who haven't followed the draft and who haven't read
> it should nevertheless somehow be brought up to date.  But if
> WGs are supposed to be a mostly self-selected group of people
> interested in a common set of documents that will provide some
> sort of utility to them, then that ought to be unncessary.
> 
> I nevertheless cheerfully concede that I also normally think
> it's important when I'm preparing something.  So why do we
> think that?

Because, as Joel pointed out in a different way, mailing list
discussions (and often diffs on versions of a document) are very
good at identifying changes in small details, including text,
but just lousy at highlighting major conceptual issues, their
status, and how they are evolving in the WG.  A review at that
level can be useful for three purposes, two of which have been
identified by others: improving the conceptual understanding of
what is going on, drawing people into the discussion
(potentially even as careful reviewers) who haven't been heavily
involved before, and identifying where the WG seems to be at a
high level and conceptually in case that identification might
bring out objections or discussion that might have not occurred
otherwise.

I generally like Ron's list, especially with Barry's addition,
as long as they are treated as guidance, rather than firm rules,
and remain that way.  As Barry points out, special circumstances
will sometimes arise and WG Chairs need the flexibility to
handle them in appropriate ways.   But there is another issue
that discussions of this type tend to miss: it is all very well
to say "that should have been discussed on the mailing list in
advance" (and I generally agree).  But we make a tremendous
number of decisions about how the IETF and its meetings are
organized based on the importance of cross-area review,
especially reviews that may not be obviously important until
they are in hand.  If we want that sort of review, we need to
carry Paul Hoffman's comments a step further and understand that
we actually want to encourage "tourism".  If the potential for
cross-area review that arises from tourism actually is important
to us, devoting a small fraction of WG meeting time to the kind
of 10 Km overviews that might enable that involvement is
actually very important.

Joel put that a little differently...

--On Monday, April 25, 2011 10:27 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On the other hand, if you only care about the folks who are
> devoted to just your topic, and not to anything else, I guess
> you can assume they have perfect memories and fully realized
> the import of what was being discussed on the list for the
> previous 4 weeks.

But, while he is looking at ongoing participants who are less
involved than others and I (and possibly Paul) are looking at
the real tourists, I think the basic issues are the same.

It will be more important in some WGs than in others and more
important at some stages of document lifecycles than others.
But let's avoid getting ourselves locked into rules or way of
thinking that prevents briefing the tourists and attempting to
get them to become more involved.  In general, I think that job
is much better done as part of a Chair's summary of status than
as part of discussion of individual documents, but situations
may differ.

Of course, getting the tourists to look up from their email long
enough to actually pay attention to a presentation/overview is a
separate matter and probably a harder one, but...

best,
   john

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:43:00 -0400

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:23:27PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> level can be useful for three purposes

This is slightly different than what I had in mind when I thought of
that review of "what has changed".

There are two kinds of "what has changed" review I've seen.  One is a
laboured, blow-by-blow account of all the changes between version n
and version n+1 of the draft, which is generally "changes since the
last meeting".  I now think what was bugging me in the discussion is
this sort of update, actually.  It is no more useful than those long,
droning presentations where someone reads the slides to the room,
outlining the contents of the draft, usually with not enough detail
for someone already unfamiliar with the draft to gain any
understanding, but with far too much detail for anyone who's done
minimal preparation for the meeting not to be bored.  (Amazingly,
these ones seem also to be the presentations I see in two and three
different WG meetings, on top of the rest of it.)  For the same
reasons, those picky presentations of "in -n we said 'foo' and in -n+1
we say 'phooey'" are a waste of everyone's time.  This is exactly what
diff is good at.  I think quite strongly that a summary mail in
advance of the meeting, saying, "Here are the closed issues and how we
coped with them, for the meeting on $date.  If you have issues with
any of this, please bring it up then," would be more productive.

But the overview, big picture narrative of changes is something I
think is helpful and useful.  I guess this is why I also feel
naturally that putting some context in at the beginning of a
presentation is quite helpful.  Perhaps that is the key bit of
guidance: if it's context, then it belongs in a presentation.  If it's
details of closed issues, I suspect, nobody needs to be told.  Context
helps in understanding and encourages people unfamiliar ("tourists")
to become engaged.  A list of detailed changes does the opposite,
boring those already familiar, confusing those who haven't been
following, and convincing "tourists" that the WG has everything well
in hand.

A

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:59:27 -0400

--On Monday, April 25, 2011 12:43 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> discussions (and often diffs on versions of a document) are
>> very good at identifying changes in small details, including
>> text, but just lousy at highlighting major conceptual issues,
>> their status, and how they are evolving in the WG.  A review
>> at that level can be useful for three purposes
> 
> This is slightly different than what I had in mind when I
> thought of that review of "what has changed".
> 
> There are two kinds of "what has changed" review I've seen.
> One is a laboured, blow-by-blow account of all the changes
> between version n and version n+1 of the draft, which is
> generally "changes since the last meeting".  I now think what
>...
> For the same reasons, those picky
> presentations of "in -n we said 'foo' and in -n+1 we say
> 'phooey'" are a waste of everyone's time.  This is exactly what
> advance of the meeting, saying, "Here are the closed issues
> and how we coped with them, for the meeting on $date.  If you
> have issues with any of this, please bring it up then," would
> be more productive.

Absolutely.   If a presentation is information-equivalent to a
mechanical diff, it is almost always a waste of time.

> But the overview, big picture narrative of changes is
> something I think is helpful and useful.  I guess this is why
> I also feel naturally that putting some context in at the
> beginning of a presentation is quite helpful.  Perhaps that is
> the key bit of guidance: if it's context, then it belongs in a
> presentation.  If it's details of closed issues, I suspect,
> nobody needs to be told.  Context helps in understanding and
> encourages people unfamiliar ("tourists") to become engaged.
> A list of detailed changes does the opposite, boring those
> already familiar, confusing those who haven't been following,
> and convincing "tourists" that the WG has everything well in
> hand.

I would have said "either well in hand or that catching up would
be difficult and not worth the effort".   But I think we are in
violent agreement.  

     john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:14:55 +1200

...
> 5) Be suspicious of version -00 drafts that are being presented in multiple WGs. While it is sometimes appropriate to present in two WGs, this is frequently a sign of WG shopping.

There is merit in all those points, but it's also of basic importance
that the IETF doesn't unthinkingly apply NIH to new ideas - in other words,
don't always rule off-charter, undiscussed, venue-shopping material unacceptable.
Sometimes, giving a *few* minutes of precious time for somebody to raise
a new topic may be exactly the right thing to do. Of course, any lengthy
discussion has to go the Bar BOF/BOF route.

    Brian

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:29:36 +0000

> the points under discussion is critical that you write them down.

No, powerpoint is not evil. Powerpoint (or Keynote or Slitex or ...) is a tool, and a very useful one.
It enables people to present material faster, and thus saves session time.
In many cases a single powerpoint animation clarifies the steps of a protocol
much better than 5 pages of an ID.

and Yes, session time SHOULD be spent on enabling a draft proponent to explain points 
that are not generally understood, so that the WG can reach a reasoned conclusion.

This discussion is very similar to the annual discussion on the general discussion list
on ASCII vs. new formats. However, in this case the voice of reason prevailed,
and modern efficient tools have completely expelled the use of markers on transparencies.

Y(J)S

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:33:10 +0000

> NONE of these activities belong in a face-to-face work group meeting.

Of course, discussion of the draft should also be on the list,
and hums are informal, with consensus being judged on the list.

So, we have proved that f2f meetings are only for cookies.

Y(J)S

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:35:21 -0700

On 4/25/11 10:29 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> No, powerpoint is not evil.

I think you and I agree but not if you don't include enough of what I
said to provide adequate context.

> Powerpoint (or Keynote or Slitex or ...) is a tool, and a very useful one.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 03:18:20 -0400

--On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 05:29 +0000 Yaakov Stein
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> and Yes, session time SHOULD be spent on enabling a draft
> proponent to explain points  that are not generally
> understood, so that the WG can reach a reasoned conclusion.
>...

While I would agree with that statement, I'd also claim that, if
there are "points that are not generally understood" associated
with a draft --points that are also important enough that they
justify taking up meeting time-- that the meeting discussion is
largely useless unless it aids in getting the draft clarified as
necessary to have those topics _be_ generally understood.   

Meeting discussions, covered in minutes or logs or not, cannot
be a substitute for clear and comprehensive documents.
Conversely, if a section of a draft requires meeting time to
clarify, that should be taken as a very strong indication that
the draft needs further refinement and where that refinement is
needed.

    john

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:29:52 +0200

On 23/04/2011 22:58, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> At IETF 80, meeting time was in short supply. Since meeting time is a finite
> resource, we need to think about how we manage it. The following are a few
> guidelines. Depending your area, your AD may be more or less strict about
> enforcement.

A WG meeting means that X people interested in and knowledgable on topic Y
are in the same room for Z hours.  I'd think that the first question should
be "what is the best way they can spend that time in order to accomplish
something useful".  All other rules should follow from that principle.

For example, if the group spends time to discuss a new idea that somebody
had in the bar the night before, and reaches a conclusion that it is not
a good idea, then that is useful even though it was not a WG item, there
is not even an -00 draft, the meeting ran longer and it probably violates
a few more rules.

> 4) Do not lower your standards for time allocation because your meeting
> agenda is empty. Better approaches are: - to end the meeting early - to move
> the meeting to a shorter slot - to cancel the meeting altogether

While I like the shorter slot option, this is not really an option as the
meeting agenda is set well before the WG agenda's are.  I also prefer
that changes in the schedule are limited, as people schedule other things
in the IETF week.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
RIPE NCC                                  http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:32:23 +0200

> list.  I also agree with pretty much everything Ron and Barry said.

In general, I do give people time to show new proposals.  I find it
a much better way to get some feedback from half a dozen experts in
the field, than to get somebody to write a draft and chase those
people to read/review it.

Henk

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:35:06 +0200

I personally have much more experience as a presenter than as a chair. Though, I totally agree with what stated by Yaakov. A good 'slideware' presentation can often help clarify the major details of a protocol much more than a drill-down I-D specification.

Simon

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:15:41 +0700

> It enables people to present material faster, and thus saves session time.

It is a reasonable one-to-many communication device.  I don't think
anybody is denying that.  One of the big questions in my mind is "What
is the primary purpose of IETF meetings?"  If it is not one-to-many, but
many-to-many communication, then maybe a different tool set is more
appropriate.

> much better than 5 pages of an ID.

"A picture is worth a thousand words."  OK.

> that are not generally understood, so that the WG can reach a reasoned conclusion.

Assuming, once again, that the basic purpose of our f2f meetings is
explanation/marketing rather than debate, discussion and interchange, yes.

> and modern efficient tools have completely expelled the use of markers on transparencies.

"Efficiency" is a very slippery term ;-).  Suppose that I find a flaw in
the protocol during the wonderful animated show.  Further, suppose that
the presenter is unable to understand my explanation of the flaw for
whatever reason.  Maybe I am alone in the IETF in my lack of PowerPoint
skills, but I doubt that I could whip up a presentation illustrating my
point in the time available.  On the other hand, if I had available a
transparency & a grease pen, I _could_ draw a picture in 30 seconds or
less; it wouldn't be beautiful, it wouldn't have a soundtrack or dance,
but I'm pretty confident that it would 'clarify the steps of a protocol
better than 5 pages of an ID', too.

...

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:24:51 +0700

On 4/26/2011 2:35 PM, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:

> I personally have much more experience as a presenter than as a chair. 

> Though, I totally agree with what stated by Yaakov. A good 'slideware' presentation 

> can often help clarify the major details of a protocol much more than a drill-down I-D specification.

Unless implementers are going to be writing code from the PowerPoint,
I'm guessing that there's something seriously wrong with that draft ;-).

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:26:09 -0400

I've been working on the PowerPoint Compiler for five years, but it still doesn't work :-)

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:33:25 +0700

> I've been working on the PowerPoint Compiler for five years, but it still doesn't work :-)

That's a shame, it would be a boon to marketroids everywhere ;-).

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:41:39 -0400

> >> 3) here's what's changed since the last version?

If the work that MUST get done in a meeting (i.e. work that isn't getting
done on the mailing list) doesn't fill the agenda, then time should be given
to other items: status updates, drafts that haven't received thorough
discussion yet, new ideas, presentations from other groups
(cross-pollination) etc.

However, as a frequent visitor to WGs I am not active in, I don't get much
out of status updates but I do like a minute setting context for each
discussion: I almost always know what the draft is about but I like to see a
list of the unresolved issues, and why they are issues, before discussion
leaders launch into the arguments.

... Scott

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:27:32 +0200

Hi Ron,

Your list is a good set of guidelines for WG chairs. Thanks.

Looking at this long email thread, it seems that we're discussing one 
more time "how to run meetings efficiently", as we addressed in the "WG 
chair lunch" in Beijing, organized by Margaret.

As a wrote to the WG chairs list in the past,

    What would be helpful is a 10 points (or whatever number) summary
    email, which could be sent to new and potentially existing WGs about
    "how to run a meeting efficiently". In this particular case, I'm
    mainly interested in the participant interactions, a kind of
    do/don't list. Simple things such as: don't present editorial
    changes, use the time to discuss open issues, post the slides 1 day
    in advance, discuss your draft on the mailing before present, etc... 

Here what I sent in the WG I co-chair:
- Please don't cover editorial changes unless they're important (we're 
supposed to have read the drafts ;-)
- The WG time should be used to resolve open issues, so keep your 
presentation time under control

- Focus on the explanatory text that give background for open issues

Feel free to improve the list.

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:29:37 -0400

Glen,
Even if everything you say is accurate, if we have a draft that is 
having trouble explaining itself, one of the best things we can do is 
get help from the rest of the WG.  Getting a good explanation to the 
other rhinkers and participants in the WG, so they can help figure out 
how (and whether) to improve the explanation, is a very good use of WG 
face time.

Also, you keep harping on the difference between presentation and 
discussion.  The person leading the discussion presumably knows the 
material better.  So having them "present" the important parts can be 
very helpful.  Having them briefly recap the the current state and major 
issues, in a high level fashion, can be a tremendous help.

Yes, as Joel J. said, having the presenter walk through a detailed list 
of every edit (or even having him describe the changes in terms of the 
edits) is a waste of time.  Yes, recapitulating the entire 5 year 
history of the WG is a waste of time.  There are lots of ways to waste 
the WGs time.  There are lots of ways to waste the face time.  There are 
lots of ways to waste the email energy.

Yes, powerpoint is very easy to mis-use.  Historically, one can even 
argue that such tendency to misuse is inherent in the design.  So what. 
  It can still be used well.  Our job as chairs is to help our 
presenters make good use of the slides, and make good use of the face 
time.  If a 7 minute presentation leads to a useful 7 minute discussion 
and a 1 minute conclusion to be verified on the email list, then we have 
had a good 15 minutes.  And that is a good 15 minutes whether it was 
using powerpoint, or if the person talked without slides.  (Although it 
is amazing how quickly people lose context listening to a presentation 
without something related to look at.)

I don't care if there is lots of research showing how badly powerpoint 
can be used, or even that the human factors design of powerpoint leads 
to frequent misuse.  In the various WGs where I have participated and/or 
chaired, I have found pwoerpoint of various styles to be extremely useful.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:15:42 +1200

> the greatest waste of time I've seen, IMO.

Well yes, but for people whose first language is not English, it may be
their only option.

   Brian

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:29:36 -0400

Brian,

On one hand, I have sympathy for first-time presenters who stand in front of the WG and panic. In that case, reading slides gives them an alternative to freezing completely.

On the other hand, this strategy can lead to disaster. At least once per IETF, a presenter who does not have sufficient command of the English language stands in front of the WG and reads his slides. When the Q&A session begins, the poor fellow can't understand any of the questions. Nobody offers to translate.

                                                  Ron

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:16 PM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [BOFCHAIRS] Managing Meeting Time
>

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:36:31 -0400

and for listeners whose primary language is not English, it can
annoying to have one set of thoughts presetned in the slides and
another set of thoughts spoken by the presenter. This makes it really
hard to follow.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[email-masked] (preferred for ietf)
[email-masked]
+1 603 828 1401 (cell) 

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:39:23 +1200

Yes. I have no solution for this; maybe it's the price of
being open and international.

   Brian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:22:03 -0700

> another set of thoughts spoken by the presenter. This makes it really

The thoughts should be related, but we're not a reading service. English 
is the language of the meeting, and of the RFCs.

I would expect an attendee to be able to get the basic idea of the 
slides, and at least the basic idea of what's being said at roughly the 
same time (speed-talkers excepted). If they have questions or need 
things repeated, they can ask. But slowing the meeting down to have us 
read what is on the slides is a sheer waste of the bulk of attendees time.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:23:33 -0700

> On one hand, I have sympathy for first-time presenters who stand in front of the WG and panic. In that case, reading slides gives them an alternative to freezing completely.

Agreed; that should be the exception, not the rule, and we should 
certainly encourage them to move out of that mode as soon as possible.

Joe

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:05:10 -0400

> another set of thoughts spoken by the presenter. This makes it really

We're back to bullet points, this time specialized. Probably everyone knows
these but

- Working Groups with significant non-English-speaking participation should
have presentation materials available well before the meeting.

- Slides should be simple, with short phrases and no more than three major
bullet points.

- presenters do not have to read their slides but should make clear,
concise statements and explanations.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:08:34 -0400

In this case everyone has the materials already so they can just read along.
As for questions, hmm,... is it possible to tell from pre-meeting discussion
whether the presenter is likely to need help, and suggest it?
On Apr 26, 2011 5:40 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
wrote:
>> On one hand, I have sympathy for first-time presenters who stand in front
of the WG and panic. In that case, reading slides gives them an alternative
to freezing completely.
>>
>> On the other hand, this strategy can lead to disaster. At least once per
IETF, a presenter who does not have sufficient command of the English
language stands in front of the WG and reads his slides. When the Q&A
session begins, the poor fellow can't understand any of the questions.
Nobody offers to translate.

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:31:41 +0700

"Efficiency" is a very slippery term ;-).  Suppose that I find a flaw in
the protocol during the wonderful animated show.  Further, suppose that
the presenter is unable to understand my explanation of the flaw for
whatever reason.  Maybe I am alone in the IETF in my lack of PowerPoint
skills, but I doubt that I could whip up a presentation illustrating my
point in the time available.  On the other hand, if I had available a
transparency & a grease pen, I _could_ draw a picture in 30 seconds or
less; it wouldn't be beautiful, it wouldn't have a soundtrack or dance,
but I'm pretty confident that it would 'clarify the steps of a protocol
better than 5 pages of an ID', too.  It all depends upon what we want to
do: if we want to enable only the broadcast of information, PowerPoint
(& equivalents) is fine but if we want to facilitate discussion, it
pretty much falls apart at the moment the discussion is initiated.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:16:21 +0200

Probably yes, in many cases. If the presenter is a new attendee the
chairs can ask in private whether such help is needed and maybe help the
new contributor to find a colleague to help him/her in the meeting. 
 
Dan

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Scott Brim
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:09 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [BOFCHAIRS] Managing Meeting Time

	In this case everyone has the materials already so they can just
read along. As for questions, hmm,... is it possible to tell from
pre-meeting discussion whether the presenter is likely to need help, and
suggest it? 

	On Apr 26, 2011 5:40 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
<[email-masked]> wrote:
	>> On one hand, I have sympathy for first-time presenters who
stand in front of the WG and panic. In that case, reading slides gives
them an alternative to freezing completely.
	>> 
	>> On the other hand, this strategy can lead to disaster. At
least once per IETF, a presenter who does not have sufficient command of
the English language stands in front of the WG and reads his slides.
When the Q&A session begins, the poor fellow can't understand any of the
questions. Nobody offers to translate.
	>>> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:09:27 +0200

I think the purpose of the slides is to bring the audience as quickly as possible to the point where reasonable discussion can be had on the specific issues on which face-to-face time is needed. In other words, to get people's minds focused. 

John

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn
> Sent: 27 April 2011 01:32
> To: Yaakov Stein
> Cc: Working Group Chairs
> > No, powerpoint is not evil. Powerpoint (or Keynote or 
> Slitex or ...) is a tool, and a very useful one.
> proponent to explain points

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:30:03 -0400

> I think the purpose of the slides is to bring the audience as quickly as possible to the point where reasonable discussion can be had on the specific issues on which face-to-face time is needed. In…

If you are listening to the audio remotely, slides are very useful. 

Marshall

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:43:22 -0500

And, alternatively, "Working Groups that do not have presentation materials available well before the meeting should not expect significant non-English-speaking participation"...

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Brim 
  To: David Harrington 
  Cc: [email-masked] ; Brian E Carpenter 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:05 PM
  Subject: RE: [BOFCHAIRS] Managing Meeting Time

  - Working Groups with significant non-English-speaking participation should have presentation materials available well before the meeting.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:54:54 -0400

> And, alternatively, "Working Groups that do not have presentation materials available well before the meeting should not expect significant non-English-speaking participation"...

Careful there -- that sounds like an easy avenue for folk who are trying to limit participation or discussions on a particular topic...

W

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:21:27 -0400

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]> wrote:
> of the presenter.

Because Joel quoted me out of context originally (which makes me
unsure of what, exactly, his "+1" is agreeing with; he seems to not
want slides), and since that excerpt is being re-quoted repeatedly, I
want to make sure the record shows that I said exactly what Klaas is
saying, here -- that is, I do NOT support the idea that we should do
away with presentation slides.  Here's what I said, in context:

> helps.

Barry

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:42:40 +0800

would Margaret be willing to write a draft about it or just keep training slide updateing?
 
-Hui

Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:27:32 +0200
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Managing Meeting Time
CC: [email-masked]

Hi Ron,

Looking at this long email thread, it seems that we're discussing one more time "how to run meetings efficiently", as we addressed in the "WG chair lunch" in Beijing, organized by Margaret.

What would be helpful is a 10 points (or whatever number) summary email, which could be sent to new and potentially existing WGs about "how to run a meeting efficiently". In this particular case, I'm mainly interested in the participant interactions, a kind of do/don't list. Simple things such as: don't present editorial changes, use the time to discuss open issues, post the slides 1 day in advance, discuss your draft on the mailing before present, etc... 
Here what I sent in the WG I co-chair:
- Please don't cover editorial changes unless they're important (we're supposed to have read the drafts ;-) 
- The WG time should be used to resolve open issues, so keep your presentation time under control - Focus on the explanatory text that give background for open issues

Regards, Benoit.

Folks,

                                                                       Ron

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:01:17 -0400

Don't pretty much *all* IETF WGs have significant attendance and interest from people whose native or first language is not English?

Ross

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:43 PM
To: Scott Brim; David Harrington
Cc: [email-masked]; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: [BOFCHAIRS] Managing Meeting Time

Spencer

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:30:22 +0700

> how (and whether) to improve the explanation, is a very good use of WG

It might a good reason to form a design team (if it's WG document) or
send the authors back to the drawing board (if it's not) but group
wordsmithing isn't a good use of f2f mtg time, IMHO.  Just to be very
clear, however: I dislike arbitrary rules intensely & would be the last
person on Earth to suggest imposing a "no PowerPoint' rule in the IETF.
 I would like to note, however, that my previous "rant" and the current
"harping" are in the context of the supposed "preciousness" of f2f mtg
time, the whining of others about such horrors as having to stay over
Friday and my own (apparently invalid) belief that the primary purpose
of f2f meetings in the IETF is to work on problems which had proven
intractable via email.  If the rest of the members of this list are
perfectly happy filling the "precious" time with patent time-wasters
like singing, dancing I-D status reports that's fine but what's not fine
is to then complain of overly long meetings, inconvenient timeslots, etc.

> material better.  

Possibly.  I've sat in many more than one WG session where the presenter
prefaced his presentation with a plea for mercy because not only was he
or she not one of the authors but the subject wasn't even in their area
of interest.

> So having them "present" the important parts can be

To whom?  All those who have never actually paid any attention to the
document in question?

>  It can still be used well.  Our job as chairs is to help our presenters
> make good use of the slides, 

I don't know about you but I this job doesn't pay nearly enough for me
to act as a PowerPoint coach ;-)

> and make good use of the face time.  If a 7
> minute presentation leads to a useful 7 minute discussion and a 1 minute
> conclusion to be verified on the email list, then we have had a good 15
> minutes.  

Only if it was impossible to come to that decision on the list itself;
otherwise, it was still a waste of time (again, from the POV that the
primary purpose of f2f meetings in the IETF is to work on problems which
had proven intractable via email).

> And that is a good 15 minutes whether it was using powerpoint,
> or if the person talked without slides.  (Although it is amazing how
> quickly people lose context listening to a presentation without
> something related to look at.)
> 

Sure, but for what?  In this thread, I've seen a number of purposes
mentioned:

-- education
-- marketing (or, if you prefer, evangelization
-- ease of monitoring

If you see any or all of these as the primary purpose(s) of your WG's
f2f sessions, that's fine.  Furthermore, if these encompass the primary
purpose of IETF meetings, that's fine with me, too, but let's not
pretend that all of them couldn't be accomplished more efficiently
remotely (which is to say, let's not pretend (except, perhaps, to our
bosses ;-) that IETF meetings serve any real purpose beyond the realm of
social interaction).

...

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:23:33 +0200

On 4/25/11 10:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Yes, definitely.  I generally refuse to allocate meeting time to
>> new proposals at all if they have not first been discussed on the
>> mailing list.  I also agree with pretty much everything Ron and
>> Barry said.
> 
> Ron said:
> 
>> 5) Be suspicious of version -00 drafts that are being presented in
>> multiple WGs. While it is sometimes appropriate to present in two
>> WGs, this is frequently a sign of WG shopping.
> 
> There is merit in all those points, but it's also of basic
> importance that the IETF doesn't unthinkingly apply NIH to new ideas
> - in other words, don't always rule off-charter, undiscussed,
> venue-shopping material unacceptable. Sometimes, giving a *few*
> minutes of precious time for somebody to raise a new topic may be
> exactly the right thing to do. Of course, any lengthy discussion has
> to go the Bar BOF/BOF route.

Additionally, allocating some meeting time to new or barely discussed
proposals -- spillover time after core discussions -- is an efficient
way to help potential contributors get and stay involved in the WG. In
practice, this usually translates to higher availability of quasi-expert
reviewers the quality of key WG documents benefit very much from.
According to my experience reserving about a 15-25% of meeting time for
that is often a reasonable compromise. YMMV.

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico