Subject: [105attendees] Administrative Plenary Time Constraint: Must End by 21:00

From: Portia Wenze-Danley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:54:43 -0400

All,

The hotel is informed the secretariat that tonight’s administrative plenary must end by 21:00 in order for their staff to begin setting up the room for tomorrow morning’s WG sessions.  The chair has asked plenary presentations be kept to a minimum so we can maximize time for open mic.

Apologies for the late notice.

Thank you.

________________________________
Portia Wenze-Danley
IETF Administration LLC Executive Director (Interim)
(Formerly IETF Administrative Director (IAD)	
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:32:02 -0400

Hi Alissa -

Given the hard stop time for the plenary, the importance of the RSE 
discussion and (AFAICT) the lack of other similar topics for the IESG,  
I propose that we move the IAB open mic session to the beginning of the 
open mic period, and seat the LLC and RSOC with the IAB for that 
session.   If we have time left over and topics, we can have the IESG 
take the stage at that time - otherwise those topics can be addressed to 
the mailing list.

I would prefer to do this rather than be heavy handed in restricting the 
time of each speaker/questioner.  I'd also like to ask that as a general 
matter of course the IAB try to limit the number of IAB responders to a 
given question to the smallest number necessary in the interests of 
getting as much community input as possible.

Thanks - Mike

On 7/24/2019 7:54 AM, Portia Wenze-Danley wrote:
> All,
>
>
> The hotel is informed the secretariat that tonight’s administrative 
> plenary must end by 21:00 in order for their staff to begin setting up 
> the room for tomorrow morning’s WG sessions.  The chair has asked 
> plenary presentations be kept to a minimum so we can maximize time for 
> open mic.
>
> *Portia Wenze-Danley*
> (/Formerly/IETF Administrative Director (IAD)
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:50:37 -0400

I’m also a bit concerned about time.  We know there is lots to talk 
about regarding the RSE and, especially if we know there’s a hard 
stop, I think it would be helpful to make as much space for that in the 
plenary agenda.  Mike’s suggestions seem good to me.

The imbalance of ‘mic time’ where one comment from the community 
gets many responses from the dias has been a long time gripe of mine. 
The various perspectives of the I* members are sometimes interesting and 
valuable but it can consume a lot of meeting time. IMO, its a flaw of 
our plenary structure.  Perhaps folks can be more targeted with who a 
question or comment is intended for.

My 0.02CAD.

--aaron

On 24 Jul 2019, at 9:32, Michael StJohns wrote:

> discussion and (AFAICT) the lack of other similar topics for the 
> IESG,  I propose that we move the IAB open mic session to the 
> beginning of the open mic period, and seat the LLC and RSOC with the 
> IAB for that session.   If we have time left over and topics, we can 
> have the IESG take the stage at that time - otherwise those topics can 
> be addressed to the mailing list.
>
> I would prefer to do this rather than be heavy handed in restricting 
> the time of each speaker/questioner.  I'd also like to ask that as a 
> general matter of course the IAB try to limit the number of IAB 
> responders to a given question to the smallest number necessary in the 
> interests of getting as much community input as possible.
>
> Thanks - Mike
>
>
>
>> plenary must end by 21:00 in order for their staff to begin setting 
>> up the room for tomorrow morning’s WG sessions.  The chair has 
>> asked plenary presentations be kept to a minimum so we can maximize 
>> time for open mic.
>>

> -- 
> 105attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/105attendees

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:52:39 -0400

On 24 Jul 2019, at 9:32, Michael StJohns wrote:

> the time of each speaker/questioner. 

-1. Many people have already been talking about dreading the expected 
long-winded "you should have done it this way" comments at the mic 
tonight.

Restricting of time each person gets has an obvious negative effect on 
the speakers who want to go on at length, but has a positive effect on 
the other 90%+ of the people in the room. I would prefer optimizing for 
the latter. Speakers who have more to say can use the ietf@ mailing list 
for long messages, and many already have.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:57:20 +0000

I strongly agree with Paul.  A uniform time limit -- on both mic and dais speakers -- is the only way to be fair. And the dais time-limit should be total, otherwise a one-minute comment from the floor becomes 10 minutes of response from the dais, which defeats the goal of hearing community input.

If that is, in fact, the goal.

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:11:35 -0400

I’m conflicted about this.  Time used for what might be speech-making 
from one person, could be a more nuanced point from another.  We keep 
saying we need to use our f2f time more efficiently.    Well, sometimes 
that means breadth and a lot of people providing quick input and it also 
can mean depth and giving folks enough time to say something clearly.  I 
think hard and fast rules like fixed time limits will prevent the latter 
(from both ends of the room).

YMMV, of course.

--aaron

On 24 Jul 2019, at 9:57, Salz, Rich wrote:

> I strongly agree with Paul.  A uniform time limit -- on both mic and 
> dais speakers -- is the only way to be fair. And the dais time-limit 
> should be total, otherwise a one-minute comment from the floor becomes 
> 10 minutes of response from the dais, which defeats the goal of 
> hearing community input.
>

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:20:09 -0400

On 24 Jul 2019, at 10:11, Aaron Falk wrote:

> I’m conflicted about this.  Time used for what might be 
> speech-making from one person, could be a more nuanced point from 
> another.  We keep saying we need to use our f2f time more efficiently. 
>    Well, sometimes that means breadth and a lot of people providing 
> quick input and it also can mean depth and giving folks enough time to 
> say something clearly.  I think hard and fast rules like fixed time 
> limits will prevent the latter (from both ends of the room).

We fully agree on that. What we might not agree on is the value for the 
large number of listeners in the room spending time listening for 
whether a particular long-winded speaker is actually going into depth on 
something that has not already been said, either earlier in the mic line 
or in the extensive ietf@ list discussion that has already happened. 
Some of us prefer to optimize for that much larger set of listeners, 
particularly in light of the fact that the mailing list will certainly 
be a good way for new points brought up succinctly tonight to be 
discussed more fully.

Restricting speakers' time when there are a lot of contributors does not 
mean not hearing what they have to say; for many of us listeners, it in 
fact can mean exactly the opposite.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 02:21:30 +1200

> long-winded "you should have done it this way" comments at the mic 

Really? I agree that comments and questions should not be long-winded,
but I don't think that is Mike's intention. It's a matter of symmetry:
if the meeting is to serve a constructive purpose, a one minute question
or comment should get a one minute answer, not 5 or more often repetitious
answers (as we've seen in the past). In other words, no time wasting, either
on the floor or on the dais.

It's already difficult enough if we overrun the schedule, because many
people have prior commitments at 8 p.m. 

    Brian

> .

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:29:13 -0400

As a brief aside, this:

> answers (as we've seen in the past).
>

should be guidance for every plenary, not just this one.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:21:40 -0400

Hi Mike,

Thanks for these suggestions. The various parties listed on the plenary agenda are in discussion about this and I’ll get back to you shortly.

Regards,
Alissa

> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa - 
> 
> Given the hard stop time for the plenary, the importance of the RSE discussion and (AFAICT) the lack of other similar topics for the IESG,  I propose that we move the IAB open mic session to the beginning of the open mic period, and seat the LLC and RSOC with the IAB for that session.   If we have time left over and topics, we can have the IESG take the stage at that time - otherwise those topics can be addressed to the mailing list.
> 
> I would prefer to do this rather than be heavy handed in restricting the time of each speaker/questioner.  I'd also like to ask that as a general matter of course the IAB try to limit the number of IAB responders to a given question to the smallest number necessary in the interests of getting as much community input as possible. 
> 
> Thanks - Mike
> 
> 
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:31:13 -0400

Hi Mike,

 We'd put the IAB/RSE discussion at the end so it could have the balance of
time; we weren't aware of the hard stop from the hotel until this morning.
As you just heard from Alissa, we're talking about what adjustments we can
make at this stage.   We're already working to keep the administrative
presentations short, to recover as much time as possible.  We may be able
to do more, and Alissa will announce it when a plan comes together.

On your point about IAB responses, our intent for the RSE discussion is to
listen and to ask questions as much as possible.  We'll obviously answer
any questions, but we will try to keep that short so that we can focus on
listening to the community about how to make this better.    Given that the
hard stop is over an hour after the scheduled end of the plenary, I'm
hopeful that the combination will give us the time we need to get a good
start on the discussion on this.  As I said to John, we also believe that
this conversation will need to continue past the plenary to include the
audiences that he pointed out are not with us in Montreal.

As the IAB is the group accountable to the community, we will be on the
stage, including Heather and the IAB members of the RSOC.  The rest of the
RSOC will be attending the plenary, and may be able to give clarifications
from the floor for points where the timeline or facts need elucidation.

regards,

Ted

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:32 AM Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> discussion and (AFAICT) the lack of other similar topics for the IESG,  I
> propose that we move the IAB open mic session to the beginning of the open
> mic period, and seat the LLC and RSOC with the IAB for that session.   If
> we have time left over and topics, we can have the IESG take the stage at
> that time - otherwise those topics can be addressed to the mailing list.
>
> given question to the smallest number necessary in the interests of getting
> as much community input as possible.
>
> Thanks - Mike
>
>
>
> plenary must end by 21:00 in order for their staff to begin setting up the
> room for tomorrow morning’s WG sessions.  The chair has asked plenary
> presentations be kept to a minimum so we can maximize time for open mic.
>
> (*Formerly* IETF Administrative Director (IAD)

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:05:38 -0400

Hi Mike,

To maximize the amount of time available for the IAB open mic, we’ll have a 10-minute limit each for the LLC Board and IESG open mic sessions, and a 20-minute hard stop for both combined if the first one is shorter than 10 minutes. The remainder of the open mic time (likely on the order of 100 minutes) will be for the IAB open mic. We are aware of some topics the community may want to raise during the LLC Board and IESG open mics so we feel it is important to allocate some time to those. To maximize the number of comments/questions during the IESG open mic, the IESG is planning to have a single AD respondent to each comment/question unless there is some very relevant fact that the respondent fails to mention.

The IETF Trust will not be providing a report during the reporting section, so that will make the reporting section shorter, and I’ve asked all other speakers providing reports to minimize their time. I have removed slides from the IETF Chair report already and I believe Portia has removed slides from her report as well.

Best,
Alissa

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:29:39 -0400

Aaron Falk <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > that means breadth and a lot of people providing quick input and it
    > also can mean depth and giving folks enough time to say something
    > clearly. I think hard and fast rules like fixed time limits will
    > prevent the latter (from both ends of the room).

Maybe we need "+1" paddles people can raise.
Or people could be asked humm if they agree or disagree.

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:39:20 -0400

> Or people could be asked humm if they agree or disagree.

I think any kind of solution that involves peer pressure isn’t going to work well.

It might make sense for us to agree in advance to some questions we would like answered, and then ask the crowd to hum “I feel that this answer was adequate” and then “I feel this answer is not complete, please continue.”

---

From: Mike StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:32:15 -0400

WFM.  Thanks.  Mike

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 24, 2019, at 12:05, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
>

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:37:23 +0000

> It might make sense for us to agree in advance to some questions we would like answered, and then ask the crowd to hum “I feel that this answer was adequate” and then “I feel this answer is not com…

I disagree with 7282.  I think humming is an awful approach to expressing
dis-/interest in any topic.  1) remote attendees can not hum, nor those
on maillists to which any question must be referred, and as/if there is a
move toward more remote participation then even fewer can hum.  2) anonymity
doesn't allow opponents (or proponent) to ask for explanation nor to attempt
to persuade.  3) non-, dis- & interest often sound equal, resulting in
nothing learned or the person with the largest diaphragm wins.

Humming should not be used/seen as a solution to behavioral problems.

This humming ritual should end.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:50:13 -0400

> This humming ritual should end.

It also doesn't work for those of us who have (albeit mild, in my case) 
hearing issues.

When chairing, I always ask for hands and repeat back the results for 
the audio/record.  I/we never report counts, just relative results 
(e.g., a few, more, a good number, many, etc.)

Lou

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:11:26 -0400

On 24 Jul 2019, at 13:37, john heasley wrote:

>> It might make sense for us to agree in advance to some questions we 
>> would like answered, and then ask the crowd to hum “I feel that 
>> this answer was adequate” and then “I feel this answer is not 
>> complete, please continue.”
>

In what way do you disagree with 7282? I think 7282 makes most of the 
points (in different ways) that you just made.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:19:36 +0000

> points (in different ways) that you just made.

In that it and only in that it, and 1603, posits that humming is
productive and should be used.  Not even to guide conversation, should
it be used, imo.

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:32:51 -0400

Humming is actually a very healthy thing to do:
http://thehealthylivinglounge.com/2009/08/06/12-instant-benefits-of-humming-daily/

Note benefits #2 and #7, so humming could very well help us to make better
decisions.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:42:47 +1000

> It also doesn't work for those of us who have (albeit mild, in my case) 

This particular issue sounds like something which could be (at least theoretically) solved by having a "humming scribe" in the same way we have a minute taker and a jabber scribe (in the same way that a "vision scribe" might be useful for shows of hands and a chair with mild vision issues).

Cheers,

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
 [email-masked]

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:09:22 -0400

ObHumo(u)r:

I read the subject line as "must end by 2100" (the year). :-)

Brian