Subject: [edu-team] Quality of WG agendas

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:39:02 -0400

In addition to the minutes, if one steps back, poor minutes are a part
of the more general problem of having improved WG transparency and
proper preparation for the WG meeting itself.

For Paris, I'd like to see us make a stab at addressing this
problem. I.e., some recommendations on how to prepare for the
meeting. The obvious starting point is a good agenda. For me, a good
agenda is one that makes it clear (early in advance) what the WG will
actually be discussing (and why) and what people can/should do to
prepare for the meeting (if they want to contribute).

Below is something I put together when I was an AD... IMO, it might be
good to polish this up a bit and encourage WG chairs to follow it (or
use it to prod WG chairs to think about the issue and discuss more
broadly what they can/should be doing to make meetings more
productive).

Thomas

Here are some suggestions for putting together good agendas for WG
meetings. I consider them good if they make it easy for folk to figure
out what will be discussed at the meetings and whether they should be
present at the session for a particular item.  Note that just
mentioning an ID name isn't usually enough, as one can't tell from
that why a draft is being discussed or whether the WG is making any
key decisions. A good agenda provides context/details/background so
that folk who _should_ be interested in the topic are alerted that
they need to be present and provides them with sufficient pointers so
that they can adequately _prepare_ for the meeting.

For each agenda item:

1) List the speaker/presenter

2) Indicate amount of time speaker/topic will get. (note: time should
   be allocated based on content and need for face-to-face time, not
   to stretch slots to fill up all available time). Chairs are
   expected to make sure that presenters accomplish what they are
   supposed to accomplish in their alloted time (e.g., by reviewing
   charts in advance, asking them to move on if a presentor is wasting
   time, etc.).

3) Include the full draft name (so folk can find them
   easily/quickly). (A URL is OK, so long as the draft ID name is
   visible.)

4) Indicate in a sentence or two why the item is on the agenda and
   _what_ the purpose of discussing it during the meeting actually
   is. That is, what is the WG supposed to accomplish during the time
   slot. Examples:

   - Final check that document is ready for LC

   - Resolve specific open issues, such as those for which there has
     mailing list discussion, but no apparent resolution. (If so,
     pointers to a mail message, etc. summarizing the issues would be
     good, so folk can be prepared

   - Gauge WG interest in the _topic_ (and not necessarily the
     proposed solution, if there is one...)

   - Gauge whether to adopt ID as a WG item?

   - Confirm consensus on topics that have been discussed on the list,
     but not enough folk have commented on.

5) For all WG documents that are _not_ on the agenda, it
   would be good to also list (on the agenda) those drafts, and their
   status, which should make it clear why there is no need to discuss
   them in the face-to-face meeting.

Finally, when sending out an (updated) agenda, please post the full
ascii text to the mailing list. For folks on planes or not otherwise
connected to the internet, it isn't helpful to have a URL with the
current agenda. It's OK to keep the most current charter up on a web
page too, but be sure to post substantial updates to the mailing list
as well, so that one can find a mostly current charter on the list.
Note also that if you have a web agenda with clickable links to IDs,
but someone cut-and-pastes the agenda (i.e., before getting on a
plane), the ID name may not appear. Thus, it is a good idea to make
the ID name visible in addition to being clickable.

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:23:23 +0200

Another good point.

Margaret, can you remind us where we are with the lunch training
in Paris? Time to converge I think. And is there any EDU topic
that deserves a plenary slot?

    Brian