Subject: IETF 93 Scheduling Issues

From: Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:55:30 -0700

Hello WG Chairs,

Unfortunately we have run into a situation where we have more WG session requests than available slots. The average number of session requests for the last seven meetings is 123, but for IETF 93 we have 139 requests. We have 135 slots available. 

Please review your session requests to ensure that you require the amount of time you have requested. If you have requested a session but are uncertain if your working group will need to meet, please throughly consider if you need the slot and cancel it if not. 

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Thank you,

Stephanie McCammon
IETF Project Manager
48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
Fremont, CA 94538
T: +1.510.492.4081
F: +1.510.492.4001

Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
www.amsl.com

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:35:04 +0300

Thank you Stephanie and apologies for the rest of us giving you an even
bigger scheduling headache than in previous meetings.

WG chairs: it is always a good idea to evaluate the length, number,
and agendas for your meetings. And talk to your ADs. If my chairs
are any indication, most of you already have :-) The role of the ADs
is to help you, as well as to act as an additional check that we
are doing the right things.

We do not need a big change, but if we could find a few working
groups with reduced time requirements, we can fit the requests in.

Anyway, the final thing I wanted to say is that the IETF is here for you.
Your needs for working on those important technology improvements
is what should drive this, not our meeting format. The purpose of the
IETF meeting is to allow the work to happen. Please keep telling us
what you need.

Jari

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:42:45 -0400

> groups with reduced time requirements, we can fit the requests in.

Actually, I disagree.  We do need a big change, because this situation has
been developing over a decade, and we (the IETF) are not managing our
in-person work time well enough.

In particular, having too many scheduled meetings over too long a time causes
people to have to unplug (or just get ill), which reduces the amount of time
for unscheduled/adhoc/informal/hallway meetings.
It is the latter meetings which is what makes the travel worthwhile.
I've made my opposition to providing any technological support for bar-bofs.

There was discussion in the RTG area about using Friday as a full day, and I
think that it is a non-starter at this point.

I want to note that it isn't just that we have blown out of M-F slots,
we have also burnt into Sat/Sun previous, and I understand the I* now
meets Friday afternoon afterwards too!  The 4-day meeting with a Sunday
arrival reception of 12-15 years ago is now a 9-10 day meeting.

Having more parallel tracks (9 rooms rather than 8) is one way, but that
will simply lead to more conflicts, or a feeling that things are happening
that one should pay attention to, which one can't...

But, lacking a clear *strategic* solution to the problem, here are some
*tactical* things that I would suggest trying:

- I'd eliminate all the 2.5hr slots.  Maybe the 1hr,2hr slots too, and
  settle on 1.5 hour slots.  Slightly wasteful for a 2 or 3 groups...
  Maybe not doable for this meeting.

- Take half an hour away from every session that asked for more than 1h,
  and try again. (that might imply killing all 2.5 slots, because they'd
  all be empty, but maybe some WGs asked for 2.5+2.5...)

- Give everyone a single 1/1.5hr slot, and then see who posts their agenda
  first, then give out second slots.

(I will be remote for this meeting, assuming we don't go VW camping.
Or perhaps I should say, assuming the campsite hasn't got wifi)

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:47:20 +0100

> in-person work time well enough.
...
> meets Friday afternoon afterwards too!  

+1

Except that the failure to impose meaningful criteria on meeting slots,
which them moves us to fill the next quantum of time, has been going on
for 20 years, not 10.  It's only been a question of when we hit the
limit, not whether.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:58:04 -0800

> in-person work time well enough.

Hear, hear.  We've also been talking about chair training, and
perhaps some discussion in that context of what it takes to be
productive between meetings can help with this situation.

Melinda

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:23:50 -0400

> in-person work time well enough.

I think that at least some part of this is that chairs / WGs sometimes
feel a need to meet, even if there isn't any work that really *needs*
WG time -- there are a number of reasons for this, one of which is a
niggling feeling that if we don't meet people will figure that the WG
is not doing stuff / making progress. Sometimes groups really just
don;t have much going on, but are not worth shutting down  - e.g:
OpsAWG has been quite busy recently (we've published 5 RCs this year),
but our 3 active drafts have now with the IESG, and we don't have
anything major at the moment. There is new work coming down the pike,
but nothing really at the moment that **needs** time. We meet jointly
with OpsArea, but if we didn't I think I still may have felt some
pressure to meet, just to show that we are active...

I'm not sure how we fix this (its a cultural thing), but might be
worth keeping in mind...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:52:10 +1000

> On 16 Jun 2015, at 4:58 am, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Add me to the +1 here - several good ideas in the thread.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:14:35 +0100

+1 on groups with few drafts:  I don't chair a small WG anymore, but I
once chaired several - and I can see the merit of actually having a
face-to-face meeting to confirm who was planning working, to get agreement
from the wider community on things, especially to keep the group focussed
as a Chair, etc. However, I wonder if these small groups could meet within
a micro-slot within an Area meeting, giving them 15-20 minutes + a little
extra if really needed at the time, this may well be sufficient for a
group with a handful of active drafts.

Gorry

One option is for an Area group to create micro-WG slots within it,

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:10:47 +0100

I sort of buy the micro slot thing on two fronts:
- only needing a small amount of time
- wanting to do without inducing expensive context switch

This time round I asked for one hour for L3SM. It will be our first ever meeting
so who knows what will show up, but we only have one draft (indeed, we only have
one deliverable) and even though it is 80+ pages, it is hard to believe we will
one hour.

As always, it should come down to making proper use of face-to-face time for
discussions of thorny issues. I think that too much time is spent presenting
drafts that we could read in our own time, and a lot of discussion seems to be
simple questions that could have been raised in email after reading the draft.
That means that the meetings have become a convenience for the busy (an
executive summary rather than sitting and reading) and an indulgence for those
for whom typing an email is just too much effort.

As chairs --- what do *we* want to achieve from face-to-face time? If we're
doing other stuff,, are we doing it just to fill the time because it would be
churlish to refuse if we have the time available? Book less time and organise so
that only the important activities have time.

I think it was the PWE3 working group that asked for agenda slots saying "Which
draft? What do you want to tell us? What issues do you want to resolve?" I like
it.

Adrian

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:29:38 +0200

On 2015-06-16 10:10, Adrian Farrel wrote:
<snip>
> that only the important activities have time.
</snip>

If you are saying that each and every wg chair (or the chairs for one
group) need to know what they want to achieve with every meeting (f2f or
other) I totally agree.

If you imply that all wg chairs (for all groups) share a common goal,
not so much.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:31:02 +0100

+1

Meeting time needs to be treated as a scarce and (therefore) valuable
resource.

Requests for meeting time should include a statement of what will be
accomplished.  By 'accomplished' I do not mean 'presented' or
'reviewed'.  I mean 'debated' and/or 'resolved'.

If a request does not include a commitment to produce meaningful
progress for the work of the group, then the request should be treated
with significantly lower priority, to be fulfilled only if slots are
available after assigning the productive meetings.

If it /does/ include a plan for progress, the AD should assess the
likelihood, by way of anticipating some gaming in the request.

In terms of seeking quality control on the use of everyone's time, all
really is not much different from a conference that insists on real
substance to its sessions, as opposed to placeholder activities for
product pitches and 'speaking opportunities'...

d/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:38:53 +0100

While I agree, there's not been much discussion of how the IETF brings new
eyes to their existing WG's work, or find energy from new people to
contribute to your WG.

I think these are also important, and I have always had the feeling that
the IETF can be a hard place to contribute once a WG has started work. WG
status updates by the Chairs, very brief updates on *where* and *what*
work needs to be done from the editors, etc - each have a role in getting
more inputs from the community...

Gorry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:45:48 +0100

> more inputs from the community...

Increasing diversity of participation and re-energizing a wg are of
course both important.  However a wg that relies on either of these
coming from a brief f2f session is setting itself up for failure: the
reliance is on something too fragile, in time and place.

In any event, I didn't suggest prohibiting such things, merely requiring
that a session have actual deliverables that relate to... you know...
actual deliverables...

d/

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:45:18 +0100

> I understand the I* now
I must say the previous practice of having the leadership
wrap-up before the end of the WG sessions was somewhat
strange.

With the current arrangement they meet before
the WGs to sync up on the most important issues
of the week, and then sync up after all the WGs
and BOFs have met to discuss what happened
and what needs to be done in consequence.

That sounds much better than the previous partially
clairvoyant approach.

- Stewart

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:37:59 -0400

> for whom typing an email is just too much effort.

I've tried rather hard to keep BFD sessions pertinent to things that require
f2f discussion.  I'm not a supporter of "read a draft to the room in slide
form".  That said, even things intended to have some level of initial
discussion don't always get any feedback so best intentions don't always
come to fuition.

One thing we do not do well though is permitting "virtual presentations" in
the context of an IETF session.  During one point where BFD did not meet, I
had gotten update slides from the various work, consolidated them and tried
to find a way to add them to the proceedings.  We didn't support that at the
time.

So, request for the tools folk: Let us post to proceedings without having an
actual meeting schedule.  

-- Jeff

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:55:11 -0400

Hi Jeff,

> to find a way to add them to the proceedings.  We didn't support that at the

Was there a particular reason you wanted them in the proceedings vs, for
example, just posting them on the WG wiki?

> So, request for the tools folk: Let us post to proceedings without having an
Isn't this really a process change, and therefore need IESG approval first?

Lou

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:57:41 +0000

Perhaps the proceedings can have links to the WG for all WG's that aren't meeting?  That might reduce a bit of the negative impact of not meeting...

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:06:41 -0500

I like the idea of a concise status summary, but is there a reason you
couldn't put the material on the WG wiki and post a note to the WG mailing
list?   I just don't think the proceedings should necessarily be the end
all, be all for what's going on in specific WGs.

Mary.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:08:22 -0400

Lou,

> example, just posting them on the WG wiki?

I think I may have eventually put them in the wiki.  But the goal is really
the fact that the proceedings are the stuff that people tend to consult when
they want to know what a presentation was at IETF-foo.

For outright WG status, I've mostly moved to maintaining that in the WG
wiki:
https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/trac/wiki

> Isn't this really a process change, and therefore need IESG approval first?

I'm happy to make the case. :-)

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:13:45 -0400

Mary,

> all, be all for what's going on in specific WGs.

For the status, as I mentioned to Lou, I maintain that in the wiki as "the
chairs' opinion of WG status".  It's a bit more than the WG-delta slides we
tend to present.

The real goal is to have a place to put *presentations*.  For example, if I
came up with draft-haas-something-clever but didn't want to waste WG time on
reading powerpoint that might be explanatory but not conversation-driving, I
could have a place to put that.

To some extent, WGs do this de facto anyway: They prioritize such things to
the end of their session and if they don't get presented, they're in the
proceedings but the authors didn't get speaking time.  I just want to skip
the need for a meeting if all we had were such slides.

Much of this is driven by how I tend to pressure presenters to justify their
timeslot.  Why is this important to have slides and mic time in front of the
session attendees?  The typical low-value answer is "it socializes the idea
to people who can talk about it either in-session or in the hallway".  This
is low to medium value, but it's definitely not no-value.

-- Jeff

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:14:00 -0400

Jeff,

> they want to know what a presentation was at IETF-foo.
humm,  now you've confused me.  I though your point was that the
material wasn't presented at IETF-foo.  I guess I'm with Mary on this
topic...

Lou

> https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/bfd/trac/wiki
Sounds right to me.

Lou
...

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:18:43 -0400

Isn't that sort of explanation what the Internet draft is for?
Yours,
Joel

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:21:33 -0400

Jeff,

> could have a place to put that.
You can upload files to the wiki too. They just don't become part of the
formal IETF record.  -- Not sure if this is a plus or minus for your use
case.

Lou

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:30:19 -0400

> formal IETF record.  -- Not sure if this is a plus or minus for your use

Yes. You can post your presentation on the wg wiki, and then send an 
email to the wg with a link to the presentation. That is better than 
attaching the presentation to the email, while still providing a way for 
a permanent copy of the presentation to be archived with wg stuff.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:52:22 -0400

> Isn't that sort of explanation what the Internet draft is for?

This edges a bit close to the RFC format discussion, but I'm going to
side-step that.

Presentations are useful because they are focused on delivering related
information in a different way and often for different reasons.  I expect a
presentation to give me a high level overview, perhaps some interesting
pictures that condense material and perhaps give me information that is
related to the draft (political, implementation, etc.).  I do not *want*
things I've found to be useful in some presentations to be in the draft - I
expect those to be good technical specifications.

In some cases, even the presentation as an "elevator pitch" is still of
value - and perhaps doesn't belong in the draft.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:59:03 -0400

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:30:19PM -0400, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> attaching the presentation to the email, while still providing a way
> for a permanent copy of the presentation to be archived with wg
> stuff.

Yes, you could.
No, it's not part of the materials.

And as I mentioned earlier, a useful property is that people use the
materials partially to find things in time.  "This was for WG FOO at
IETF-bar".

Not to brush off all of the valid points people have been mentioning, but
I'm really not looking for a way to post files or provide simple indexing of
such files.  I can figure out five ways to do that.

What I'm looking to do is contribute to the meeting materials for working
groups that may not be meeting.  As mentioned, we can already do this even
if the presentation is never given.

If you must debate the usefulness of such posts to the materials, let's talk
about that and not how I can post files those five other ways. :-)

I also defer the discussion about whether other people find the proceedings
to be a useful thing or not.  I'll save that rant for later.

-- Jeff

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:20:52 -0800

> value - and perhaps doesn't belong in the draft.

Maybe as a rough guideline we could shoot for one-slide
presentations.  But I think the real answer is to find some
way to address the cultural problems that lead to treating
meetings as conferences (or worse, as ITU-T meetings).

Melinda

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:27:39 -0400

> meetings as conferences (or worse, as ITU-T meetings).

A format I've found useful for elevator pitches with technical content has
been a "lightning round".  You get no more than 3 minutes to make your
pitch, but you should not expect time for technical discussion.

Proceedings-wise, this is one of the low-value cases.  Still useful to have
in there, but not my main concern.

-- Jeff

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:51:28 -0400

Jeff,

> about that and not how I can post files those five other ways. :-)
I'm at a bit of loss to understand your objective.  If a WG doesn't
meet, I don't see why it would have proceedings for a non-existent WG
session.

Lou

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:15:56 -0400

> meet, I don't see why it would have proceedings for a non-existent WG

Status-like material or supplemental material that would otherwise be
presented.

To make this a bit more personal, I think many of you are too lenient with
giving people timeslots at your sessions.  We had a nice plenary
presentation about this a few years ago (I should dig up the reference).
But in effect, it's giving time to things which really don't deserve time
but still need working group recognition and meeting-session checkpoints.

Examples include:
- Changes in documents since last presentation.  Why are people getting 3-5
  minute time slots to go over a diff?  I don't think I've ever seen
  mic discussion on diffs.
- The "I'm going to cover my internet-draft in detail" slides.  This often
  includes a speaker who reads the slide contents verbatim.  Sometimes these
  are English as a second language issues, but not always.
- The "my I-D came out the day before cut-off" presentation.  These are
  particularly bad when they're new topics and often tolerable when they're
  covering stuff already in discussion on the WG mailing list.
- The "road show" presentation: Something that gets presented in multiple
  WGs.  When audiences for the presentation are somewhat disjoint, this
  makes sense.  In many cases, there's strong overlap between groups.
  I find the versions of this that alter presentation content based on
  audience tolerable.

Add your own.

For most of my presentation pet-peeves, the presentation *material* is
useful. The *taking a presentation slot* isn't.  Yes, much of this could go
into the wiki but the focus of most such presentations is the meeting
checkpoint.  For the at reason, I believe it belongs in the proceedings.

And in criticism of myself, I've given timeslots for some of the above, but
I try to not allocate a longer session for it and I move these to the end so
they can get pushed out by real discussion when that happens.

-- Jeff

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:51:00 -0500

My thoughts on this below [MB].

>   minute time slots to go over a diff?  I don't think I've ever seen
[MB] Why isn't this information just in an appendix in the draft and/or
posted on the mailing list when the new version is available? That's a much
better historical record IMHO. [/MB]

>   are English as a second language issues, but not always.
[MB] I think this fits into a slightly different category.  I personally
don't like the reading of slides verbatim BUT I think we do need to make
some allowances for those that are not native english speakers.  I think
this is totally different in many cases than just something you are
capturing as a checkpoint.   And, realistically, others that do this maybe
need a mini-course in effective presentations.   [/MB]

>   covering stuff already in discussion on the WG mailing list.
[MB] But, why would a presentation add value here?  Again, I think the WG
archives is the place to capture what's going on.  And, WG chairs can ask
the authors to summarize regularly where they think the draft is. And,
realistically, after x amount of discussion, the authors should be
publishing an updated version and if they include the summary of changes in
the appendix or at least on the WG mailing list, you have your status.
 [/MB]

>   I find the versions of this that alter presentation content based on
[MB] I would think a reasonable approach here would be to include a note in
the WG minutes about the "road show" presentation that was given in another
WG.  Folks can go look in the proceedings for that WG and in the minutes
and watch the Meetecho recording, etc.I don't see value in including the
"road show" presentations that weren't presented in a specific WG in the
proceedings for that WG.  [/MB]

> they can get pushed out by real discussion when that happens.

[MB] Right. But, I don't see that including these presentations that
weren't really worthy of f2f WG time in the proceedings to really add any
more value than a WG/chairs having the discipline to document things in the
drafts and or provide good summaries on the WG mailing list.  We have
decent search tools now for draft specific discussions and I am much more
likely to rely on what happens on the WG mailing list when doing shepherd
write-ups, for example, than meeting presentations.  So, I'm really curious
the value of the presentations in the long run. In general, the
presentations should be in support and provide guidance for the dialog at
f2f meetings and shouldn't at all be replacements for discussion on WG
mailing lists. [/MB]

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:19:44 -0400

>   I find the versions of this that alter presentation content based on

I generally pick a meeting slot length that I think is appropriate,
and then send out a call for agenda items.
I get a mix of useful ("close the canonicalization issue") and not
useful ("I updated my personal pet project draft again...") requests
for time. If it looks like I will have free time at the end of the
slot I'll shovel in the less useful ones - this allows people to
introduce new work, try get folk interested, etc.

I think that a fair bit of this changes based upon the group and
participants - the sorts of people who come to BFD, I2RS (and IDR and
DNSOP and ...) are generally deeply involved in / have dayjobs related
to BFD, IDR, etc. This makes them likely to read most of the new
drafts that show up. Some other groups are much less focused (e.g
opsawg, opsec, *awg), and you may need to do a small dog and pony show
to get people to realize that they *do* care deeply about
draft-smith-boring-title-00...

w

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:44:38 +0000

> DNSOP and ...) are generally deeply involved in / have day jobs related

As another *awg chair (well, the Transport folks optimized the 'a' out
of tsvwg), I concur.  Figuring out which drafts really do need that
exposure is a judgment call (WG chairs, ADs as needed), and it is a
judgment call.  This can contribute to some mistaken expectations - every
so often, folks like Warren and yours truly have to send out emails
reminding people that submitting a draft does not create an automatic
entitlement to WG meeting agenda time.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: WGChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:20 PM
> To: Jeffrey Haas
> Cc: WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: IETF 93 Scheduling Issues
>

---

From: "Pat (Patricia) Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:56:54 +0000

I can see the point of a status report to record WG status at the time of the session even if it didn't meet:
	draft-foo-...  is in WG last call
	draft-bar-... is being revised
etc. 
One could comb through the reflector traffic to figure it out, but it would be convenient to have it in one place.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: BOFChairs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:51 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [BOFChairs] IETF 93 Scheduling Issues

Jeff,

Lou

_______________________________________________
BOFChairs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bofchairs

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:26:13 +0000

> I'm at a bit of loss to understand your objective.  If a WG doesn't meet, I
> don't see why it would have proceedings for a non-existent WG session.

Apparently some people see the proceedings as a way to get an over IETF snapshot, and some WG's seem to meet just to get into that snapshot.
Since WG slots are at a premium and this is unlikely to change, providing a way to get your snapshot into the central collection point seems like a good thing to do.  It also might encourage more participation, since perusing mail archives is not a good way for a casual observer to decide if they want to get more involved.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:38:47 -0400

On 6/17/15 9:26 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> meet, I don't see why it would have proceedings for a non-existent
>> WG session.
> 
> Apparently some people see the proceedings as a way to get an over
> IETF snapshot, and some WG's seem to meet just to get into that
> snapshot. Since WG slots are at a premium and this is unlikely to
> change, providing a way to get your snapshot into the central
> collection point seems like a good thing to do.  It also might
> encourage more participation, since perusing mail archives is not a
> good way for a casual observer to decide if they want to get more
> involved.
> 

So, over in the Internet Area, the ADs ask all the WGs to post a WG
summary to the area wiki after each face-to-face meeting.  The goal is
to provide a way for anyone to check the wiki to see what is the status
of their favorite INT area WG at the time of a meeting.  I have had
numerous people say they find this useful and beneficial as a snapshot
in time.  Chairs can put whatever they like in their summary, so I think
Jeff's need for summary presentations would fit just fine.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:47:37 +0200

> Jeff's need for summary presentations would fit just fine.
Like for OPS.
See the WG High Level Summaries at the bottom of 
http://tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:17:25 -0700

On Jun 18, 2015, at 4:47 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> See the WG High Level Summaries at the bottom of http://tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki

Security Area has done this for years, and it is indeed useful.

I have heard similar concerns to what Rich gave from people who believe that "meeting proceedings" are important enough to have stub WG sessions. It would be a reasonable change to the the way we put together proceedings to allow ADs to be able to say "for this WG, these are not meeting minutes, but they should be put into that slot".

Does anyone object to this? If not, I'll figure out exactly what process would need to change to make it happen, possibly even for Prague.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:11:23 +0000

On 6/18/15, 11:17 AM, "WGChairs on behalf of Paul Hoffman"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Hi!

>I have heard similar concerns to what Rich gave from people who believe
>that "meeting proceedings" are important enough to have stub WG sessions.
>It would be a reasonable change to the the way we put together
>proceedings to allow ADs to be able to say "for this WG, these are not
>meeting minutes, but they should be put into that slot".

>Does anyone object to this? If not, I'll figure out exactly what process
>would need to change to make it happen, possibly even for Prague.

I don¹t object..but I would like to go one step further.  I think we
should forget about ³IETF-xx Proceedings² and start publishing
³Proceedings for the work done ending at IETF-xx² (with a better name, of
course!), to include not just information about WGs that didn¹t meet f2f,
but interims and/or other summary information the WG Chairs want to be
reflected there there.  [Also cutting the AD from the process.]

Throughout the thread many people made suggestions about using a wiki ‹ I
think those are great ideas and are not in conflict to having the
proceedings exist as a central location (in some cases it may be pointers
to the appropriate snapshot).  The two are complementary.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:19:51 -0400

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> reflected there there.  [Also cutting the AD from the process.]

I like this idea.  Happily, we are doing more virtual interims and getting
work
done.

Alia

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:46:59 -0700

On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> reflected there there.

I like the idea, but see no reason to change the name. In organizations that *only* do work at meetings, "proceedings" document the work done. For organizations like the IETF, "proceedings" can mean "work done since the last proceedings". I think have three proceedings a year seems reasonable, given history.

>  [Also cutting the AD from the process.]

That's up to the IESG. It's work for them to approve input to the proceedings, but it is also risk for them not to review it.

> to the appropriate snapshot).  The two are complementary.

Yes, but most WGs that have tried wikis in the past have had them go nowhere, or not far. Proceedings are not all that interesting, but at least outside organizations understand what they mean.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:05:33 +0100

> On 18 Jun 2015, at 17:19, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I like this idea.  Happily, we are doing more virtual interims and getting work
> done.

I would be happy as a WG chair to provide a brief summary of WG activity since the last IETF meeting, to be recorded along with materials from the meeting (which may also include a brief summary of what happened in the WG session, if a session happened at that IETF).

Tim

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:00:12 -0400

Hi Paul,

On 6/18/15 12:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> That's up to the IESG. It's work for them to approve input to the
> proceedings, but it is also risk for them not to review it.
> 

At the risk of getting myself in trouble... I have been an AD for 3+
years and I have never approved the input to the proceedings.

>> Throughout the thread many people made suggestions about using a
>> wiki ‹ I think those are great ideas and are not in conflict to
>> having the proceedings exist as a central location (in some cases
>> it may be pointers to the appropriate snapshot).  The two are
>> complementary.
> 
> Yes, but most WGs that have tried wikis in the past have had them go
> nowhere, or not far. Proceedings are not all that interesting, but at
> least outside organizations understand what they mean.

Agreed.  The wiki approach is really meant for IETF participants.  I
would support a change to the proceedings to allow all work that occurs
up to that IETF meeting.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:05:08 -0700

> years and I have never approved the input to the proceedings.

Good point: we WG chairs don't have to have our meeting minutes approved by our ADs before they go into the Proceedings.

However, the minutes are always entered into the system by the chairs. The idea of having a group-edited wiki as our proceedings-like publishing mechanism means that some of our more, um, aggrieved WG members get to say what goes there as much as others.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:34:21 -0700

> That's up to the IESG. It's work for them to approve input to the proceedings, but it is also risk for them not to review it.

This may come as a shock but I've never looked at the proceedings for
any reason other than to find out what happened to something.