Subject: [AVT] The AVT sessions in Vancouver

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:14:50 +0200

Hi,

Me and Colin are thinking we are unnecessarily using two session during 
the IETF meeting. In many cases there is a bit of presentation, and then 
  no questions or debate. This is not what IETF meeting time is intended 
to be used for. It is intended to resolve issues that can't be resolved 
otherwise and to discuss fundamental and important topics. Therefore we 
are proposing to change how we run these AVT session at the next IETF 
meeting.

For the Vancouver meeting we propose to only accept AVT agenda requests 
that fulfills at least one of these requirements:
- Discussion of important drafts fundamental for the complete RTP
   framework.
- Discussion of issues that hasn't been possible to resolve on the
   mailing list.
- Discussion of new work that falls outside of our current charter.
- Discussion of important AVT relevant work in other WGs

The intention is that AVT should fit within a single 2-2.5 hour slot, 
thus allowing more easy scheduling. Enabling AVT to not collide with 
other WG that share people with AVT, like MMUSIC, SIP, SIPPING, etc. 
This should also make it more easy to prepare for AVT and thus allowing 
more people being prepared on the topics that are discussed.

We chairs will also try to help ensure that the slides that a draft(s) 
author uses in the discussion does focus the WG at discussing the 
relevant issues, rather than presenting.

One foreseen effect is that many RTP payload formats will never be 
discussed at any IETF meeting as most should be developed without major 
issues. We acknowledge the need from authors to seek guidance for their 
drafts. However the best way of doing this is on the mailing list 
allowing both WG participants and us chairs to respond. We chairs are 
also working on a draft that will help RTP payload format authors to 
perform their work more quickly and with better initial quality.

Comments on our proposal?

Magnus and Colin

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: David R Oran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:28:42 -0400

On Sep 16, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Me and Colin are thinking we are unnecessarily using two session  
> during the IETF meeting. In many cases there is a bit of  
> presentation, and then  no questions or debate. This is not what  
> IETF meeting time is intended to be used for. It is intended to  
> resolve issues that can't be resolved otherwise and to discuss  
> fundamental and important topics. Therefore we are proposing to  
> change how we run these AVT session at the next IETF meeting.
>
> For the Vancouver meeting we propose to only accept AVT agenda  
> requests that fulfills at least one of these requirements:
> The intention is that AVT should fit within a single 2-2.5 hour  
> slot, thus allowing more easy scheduling. Enabling AVT to not  
> collide with other WG that share people with AVT, like MMUSIC, SIP,  
> SIPPING, etc. This should also make it more easy to prepare for AVT  
> and thus allowing more people being prepared on the topics that are  
> discussed.
>
> We chairs will also try to help ensure that the slides that a draft 
> (s) author uses in the discussion does focus the WG at discussing  
> the relevant issues, rather than presenting.
>
> discussed at any IETF meeting as most should be developed without  
> major issues. We acknowledge the need from authors to seek guidance  
> for their drafts. However the best way of doing this is on the  
> mailing list allowing both WG participants and us chairs to  
> respond. We chairs are also working on a draft that will help RTP  
> payload format authors to perform their work more quickly and with  
> better initial quality.
>
This makes perfect sense.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:54:08 -0400

I agree that just having 5-minute slide flippings isn't going to help  
much and that the four items mentioned are probably the most  
productive use of time.

In general, in many cases (not just AVT), I find the microphone  
discussions less than helpful. They often come from either people  
that have already had (more than) their say on the mailing list,  
repeating the same arguments, or from people that have not  
participated at all in the discussion and may or (likely) may not  
have read the draft and just react to whatever triggered a hot button  
in the presentation.

However, one of the general problems in the WGs with large amounts of  
on-going work is that it is essentially impossible for more than a  
very small group of people to read a substantial part of the  
documents, particularly if some of the documents are dozens of pages  
and are not written all that well.

I think there are essentially two opposite approaches to this problem:

(1) Broaden participation

(2) Formalize and deepen review, and accept the fact that most drafts  
will only really be read by maybe half a dozen people.

(2) is roughly similar to the scientific publication review process.

(1) might be accomplished by giving mid-stream reviews of the  
material, so that those who have not had a chance to read a document  
can get a sense of what's going on, rather than just deltas that are  
largely meaningless.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:54:08 -0400