Subject: Small Group Discussion experiment in NVO3 from IETF 97

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 16:40:07 -0500

At IETF 97, during the WG Chairs Lunch, we talked about experimenting with
different ways to hold effective meetings.  One experiment that NVO3 did
was break into separate small groups with different focuses for intense
"design-team like" discussion and then come together to summarize.

I've written up my perspective of this on the IESG wiki at:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/MeetingExperiments

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Jon Hudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:42:17 -0800

So first off, Thank You! The apathy being experienced was difficult and
this seems to be have been a great catalyst.

This part:

4) One group ended up with a facilitator doing more lecturing and
explaining, but even in that group - no one was looking at laptops and
everyone seemed interested and engaged.

5) One group had 5-6 people coming up and drawing different scenarios and
actively brainstorming together.

6) The third group had the facilitator primarily writing but a front row of
5-6 people discussing and others actively listening and learning.

Is especially interesting and almost implies that dividing into method
groups instead of topic groups could be interesting.

I also wonder if we got lucky on the topics bubbling up. Sometimes the
issues that need to be worked on are not issues folks
feel comfortable taking about in the grand forum. If other WGs take try
this method, it will be interesting to see how topic selection goes and
what impact it has on individual WG success.

All and all awesome trial and much appreciated writeup.

My only concern is how motivation looks moving this forward. For example,
if folks knew that more "formal" design teams would be selected from
these exercises would less people have left when the process started? Or is
that the wrong motivator?

I would also add that I am not sure mail lists are the best way to continue
this as there is often more motivating someone not to speak up on a mail
list than there is motivation to do so. However I am not saying that group
phone calls work either as I have experienced those going VERY well and
VERY poorly depending from my view on the facilitator (quick shout to Erik
Nordmark who does this VERY well). And perhaps if energy is restored in a
subsequent meeting, then perhaps the activity has served it's purpose as a
stand along event.

My point is that in some cases to get the most out of these methods when
used we may need to be as creative and experimental with what the follow up
activity is as you were getting this going.

Finally, on a very personal note: YA!!!!!!
Jon

-- 
"Do not lie. And do not do what you hate."