Subject: please upload agendas for Honolulu

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:55:51 +0200

I noticed that there are a number of WG meeting agendas missing. Time to submit one! Please remember that you can always update an agenda if it changes.

Jari

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:08:15 -0600

Jari is being too nice.

There was a deadline a week ago to submit preliminary agendas.

Right now, 30 sessions don't have an agenda submitted at all (hopefully 
most of those have circulated something on their lists, but I've already 
found several that didn't).

I think we can do better.

RjS

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:59:30 -0600

Here are the groups that don't have agendas uploaded yet (not counting 
those that are marked cancelled):

RTG: pce, bier, pim, i2rs, bess
APP: eppext, uta, core, precis
INT: detnet
TSV: tsvarea, dtn, conex, tcpinc
OPS: netconf

RjS

On 11/3/14 2:08 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Right now, 30 sessions don't have an agenda submitted at all 
> (hopefully most of those have circulated something on their lists, but 
> I've already found several that didn't).
>
>> I noticed that there are a number of WG meeting agendas missing. Time 
>> to submit one! Please remember that you can always update an agenda 
>> if it changes.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:18:35 +0100

Robert,

Are you sure about bess?
We uploaded it on October 28th and it seems available:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-bess

-m

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:39:40 -0600

You're right -

I was looking at the sessions that had "No Agenda Submitted" on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.html#APP,GEN,INT,IRTF,OPS,RAI,RTG,SEC,TSV

bess shows no agenda for it's session on Friday afternoon I in Kahili, 
but I do see an agenda for the
Wednesday morning session in Coral 5, which strikes me as a bug on the 
agenda page. I'll file a ticket.

I checked the other groups listed below and I don't find agendas for 
them on other timeslots like I do for bess.

RjS

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:45:34 +0100

Robert,

it might not be a bug.
Friday was originally scheduled for PWE3. But the slot has been 
allocated to BESS yesterday evening.

-m

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:38:37 +0000

> On 4 Nov 2014, at 15:59, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Here are the groups that don't have agendas uploaded yet (not counting those that are marked cancelled):
> 

To me this (and the earlier report of 30 missing) suggests that the deadline itself is problematic.

I note also that this IETF the agenda deadline was coincident with the I-D submission cutoff deadline.

Given that the vast majority of attendees will have made their travel plans well in advance I wonder what the rationale is for having the draft session agendas published a full two weeks in advance of the meeting.

Ray

[mea culpa, the Homenet agenda wasn’t available until Monday 3rd - the previous week I was on vacation and my co-chair away at a conference]

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 06:25:03 -0500

> I note also that this IETF the agenda deadline was coincident with the I-D submission cutoff deadline.
Agreed - we had some unnecessary churn because of this as well.

-- Flemming

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 06:58:26 -0500

> Given that the vast majority of attendees will have made their travel plans well in advance I wonder what the rationale is for having the draft session agendas published a full two weeks in advance…

So that people who will be attending a lot of meetings have time to read the drafts that are on the agenda.

*ahem*

---

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:15:33 +0000

> On 5 Nov 2014, at 11:58, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

OK, so AD’s are a special case ;-)

Ray

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:33:25 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Flemming
> Andreasen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:25 AM
> To: Ray Bellis; [email-masked] Chairs
> Subject: Re: Missing agendas (was Re: please upload agendas for Honolulu)
> 
> 
...
> Agreed - we had some unnecessary churn because of this as well.
There's always some churn, but it could be reduced if the draft agenda
deadline were at least a few days after the draft deadline.
wg chairs are usually working against the draft deadline, too.

Suggest: draft wg agenda posted, draft deadline + 1 week
and: Revised wg agenda posted, draft deadline + 1 week +3 days

Al

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:33:14 -0500

> OK, so AD’s are a special case ;-)

It isn't only the ADs who attend a lot of sessions and who want to 
prepare by reviewing the drafts that will be on the agenda.

I really want a week between when the agendas are published and the time 
I get on a plane.

In addition to developing a reading list, I also transform the 
consolidated agendas of the sessions I will be attending into a template 
for the notes I will take. That way, when people start talking I don't 
have to spend time transcribing who they are and what they are talking 
about. (Often that info isn't visible on the slides, or goes by too 
quickly to transcribe.)

(This isn't something I do as a *chair*, it is something I do to be an 
effective attendee.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:16:08 -0500

Given that agendas can always be changed, I don't see any problem in
requiring that some sort of agenda be posted a week earlier than the
current deadline.

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

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:59:48 -0800

I don't think the agenda deadline is really related to the ID deadline.  It's not like there are many cases where someone writes an ID on the last day and then decides to ask for an agenda slot.  Most of the work is ongoing.  Even in that case of a last minute new draft, the agenda can be changed.

Bob

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:30:52 -0900

> I really want a week between when the agendas are published and the time

I wonder if this discussion isn't suggestive of a problem in how we're
getting work done.  For quite some time we've been tipping away from
doing most of our work on mailing lists towards a meeting-based model,
much closer to the other standards bodies like ITU-T, IEEE, and ETSI.
If you're participating in a working group you really ought to know
what's going to be on the agenda because it's what's under discussion on
your mailing list.  If you're not sufficiently interested in a piece
of work to be on the mailing list, I'm not sure an agenda will be
helpful (while the charter link probably will), and you can always
go check the mailing list archive, anyway.  If there's something that's
not a working group deliverable that might be on the agenda, it really
ought to be discussed on the mailing list beforehand.  I'm not
suggesting that this all needs to be set in stone, but that I'm a
little confused about what's actually under discussion.

Melinda

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:56:48 -0500

> little confused about what's actually under discussion.

My level of engagement varies from WG to WG. I intimately follow some of 
them. For others I follow to some degree. I might follow some drafts in 
detail, some drafts loosely, and studiously ignore others. This is 
especially true for multi-purposed groups such as MMUSIC and DISPATCH.

Another thing is that I'm often asked to take notes in meetings. While I 
take notes for my own purposes, I don't like to take official notes in 
meetings where I am heavily engaged, because it conflicts with actively 
participating in the discussions. So I am more inclined to volunteer to 
take notes in those sessions where I am less engaged - the ones I mostly 
just monitor. But precisely because I am not so engaged in those it is 
harder to take notes there - I many not know all the people (even 
speakers) and may not know details about every draft that is being 
discussed. This is especially the case where have a template for notes 
based on the agenda is helpful. It means I already have the topic and 
speaker written down. So I can concentrate on following what is going on.

I know different strokes for different folks, but this is what works for me.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:06:34 +0000

+1 - it would be good to apply some backpressure to 
the entirely-too-common practice of submitting a new draft at the deadline
and expecting meeting agenda time to "present" that draft.  Our last-minute
draft submission burst (both new drafts and updates to existing ones) makes
it impossible to seriously read all the interesting drafts in the two weeks
before the IETF meeting week.  Surely that result is not a BCP ;-).

At least OPSAWG and TSVWG have a practice of wanting to see mailing list
interest before handing out meeting agenda time - Melinda's been one of
the OPSAWG chairs who have sent nicely worded messages on that topic:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/SW6CdKG-gEEb0yjjKgznt6qNbo0

It would be helpful to start getting word out that last minute submission of
a new draft reduces the likelihood of getting meeting agenda time.  This is
doubly true when the new draft has significant flaws, as there's no
opportunity for the authors to fix the draft prior to the upcoming meeting.

Thanks,
--David

> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 12:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:16:44 -0600

> before the IETF meeting week.  Surely that result is not a BCP ;-).
[MB] I totally agree with this.  However, I have found I seem to be in the
minority.  I fussed about this a the last IETF in a particular WG and no
one seemed at all concerned (including ADs).   There were 2 drafts around a
similar topic.  There had been no mailing list discussion of either.
[/MB]

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/SW6CdKG-gEEb0yjjKgznt6qNbo0

[MB] I think that's a great model and we have found it to be extremely
effective in the DISPATCH WG for 5+ years.  I think it totally optimizes
f2f time and in the end, work can get done much more efficiently. [/MB]

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:24:22 -0500

I saw a particularly unhappy example just this morning, I think -- 
someone who asked for and got a five-minute slot to present a 
last-minute draft. Really, an introductory message to the list would 
accomplish more.

Tom Taylor

...

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:46:39 -0500

> opportunity for the authors to fix the draft prior to the upcoming meeting.

I agree. I do this.

This is especially important for new drafts.

In spite of this, even for wg drafts that upcoming deadline before a 
meeting often seems to be the required motivator to get an author to 
finish the updates.

The readers also often seem to apply more time and effort to reading 
drafts when getting close to a meeting. If an author is conscientious 
and gets a draft out early in the cycle it is sometimes hard to get 
people to review it then.

There seems to be a sweet spot for publishing new work and getting it 
discussed. It starts perhaps a month after a meeting, and ends maybe a 
couple of weeks before the next meeting. But it really ends sooner if 
you want to get on the next agenda.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:17:08 -0600

Bringing this back to this meeting for a moment:

$ for i in pce bier pim i2rs eppext uta core precis detnet tsvarea dtn 
conex tcpinc netconf; do curl -sI -o /dev/null -w "$i %{http_code}\n" 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-$i ; done
pce 200
bier 404
pim 200
i2rs 404
eppext 404
uta 200
core 200
precis 200
detnet 404
tsvarea 404
dtn 404
conex 404
tcpinc 200
netconf 200

Thanks for the 200s.
Can we fix the 404s?

RjS

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:20:00 -0600

For what it's worth ...

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-$i ; done

Was canceled earlier today.

>> meeting often seems to be the required motivator to get an author to finish
>> the updates.
>>
>> drafts when getting close to a meeting. If an author is conscientious and
>> gets a draft out early in the cycle it is sometimes hard to get people to
>> review it then.
>>
>> couple of weeks before the next meeting. But it really ends sooner if you
>> want to get on the next agenda.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>> --David
>>>

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:56:58 -1000

At the risk of me-too'ing this thread, we did a preliminary agenda a week
or two before the deadline.  Following the rule that agenda time goes
first to adopted WG drafts and drafts that have had mail discussion, we
knew 50-75% of the agenda early. I followed up with authors of documents
that we knew about, to see if we would have a new version to put on the
agenda. Then we were able to allocate the last 25% of our time to late
submissions, and they got shorter windows.

I was pretty happy with our agenda management at this meeting.

Lee

On 11/5/14 11:16 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Given that the vast majority of attendees will have made their travel
>>plans well in advance I wonder what the rationale is for having the
>>draft session agendas published a full two weeks in advance of the
>>meeting.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> [mea culpa, the Homenet agenda wasn¹t available until Monday 3rd - the
>>previous week I was on vacation and my co-chair away at a conference]
>
>