Subject: [93attendees] making better uses of IETF f2f time

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:24:44 -0400

(subject-change)

Dave and others,

Improving the use of face-to-face time is very important.  In Routing,
we've done WG Chair training on project management (
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/WGChairTraining ) as well as
having several discussions during our WG Chair Chats.

One aspect that helps is figuring out what is needed to move the milestones
of the WG forward and ask for those discussions.  Figuring out what
discussions need face-to-face time, encouraging good discussions on the
mailing list, and using virtual interims for targeted discussions that are
not resolving on the mailing list - all are good techniques to help better
manage the face-to-face meeting time.

However, we ask our WG chairs to guess how much time will be needed so a
schedule can be done - before new draft versions are even submitted.  It's
hard when new work can materialize and there can be a tendency for
just-in-time draft writing and meeting request time.

One can encourage that presentations be reviewed by WG Chairs before the WG
meeting and improved - but if those aren't provided, it's a chair judgement
call as to whether have the draft discussion go forward.

Sometimes, people only get around to it right before the deadline - and
don't realize the cascading harm that causes.

We have excellent WG chairs - but they do not work in a vacuum.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> > Furthermore, solving the problem that we are making poor use of time
> > during IETF f2f meetings by cramming the agenda with yet another
> > interval when we don’t have a break is not going to solve the problem.
>
>
> This is the only interesting aspect of this thread:  ignoring the
> underlying problem, in favor of creating new ones.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:33:09 -0400

Yes, what Alia said.   I sat in on part of one of her chair meetings, which I understand are not optional.  I would like to see this replicated in other areas.   I had actually intended to try, but that wound up not happening.   Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:34:38 -0400

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, what Alia said.   I sat in on part of one of her chair meetings,
> which I understand are not optional.  I would like to see this replicated
> in other areas.   I had actually intended to try, but that wound up not
> happening.   Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
>

Thanks Ted!  They actually are optional but we get good attendance because,
I assume,
they are seemed as useful (or perhaps it's the bad jokes?).

Alia

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:50:11 +0200

> Dave and others,

Alia, and others,

Everything you describe is Goodness.  More should do it.

And perfection is not the goal. However in general, the IETF has had
minimal discipline to the process of granting meeting time.  Not none,
but also not much.

At base, this is indeed the stuff of project management.  And while some
ADs do press their chairs to properly justify their requests for meeting
time, I believe it has not been all that widespread or all that diligent.

Unfortunately, a meaningful change in our need for IETF Week meeting
time will require ADs to become rather aggressive in pushing back on
time requests, including setting threshholds, such as requiring wg
progress before the meeting, and a meaningful initial agenda to explain
how the time will be spent.

d/