Subject: Re: this is insane.

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:23:21 -0500

At 09:48 AM 12/9/98 -0800, you wrote:
>If there was a simple solution to this problem, we would probably have
>implemented it already.

simple solutions have been suggested a number of times.  they involve
substantial advance planning and elimination of the host (unless one
appears two years before the event).  While there is a claim that the
attendance has grown beyond planning, but evaluation of the attendance data
suggests that the growth is, in fact, proceeding rather predictably.

In effect, we have one or two IETFs every year that have a serious
logistical problem.  It appears that the terminal room has finally been
removed as a consistent problem, by virtue of getting a consistent and
competent resource to handle it on a continuing basis.  There's a lesson here.

Megan used to make a point of looking for places with large/wide corridors,
since the tendency of the IETF population to clutter the halls is
consistent.  Clearly we did not benefit from that bit of well-established
expertise this time, presumably due to limited choice.

The solution to limited choice is to find a few places that work well for
us and to keep visiting them, with the option of visiting new places ONLY
if they are clearly going to be very comfortable for the group.

d/ 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[email-masked]>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
                                         Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting                                          
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464              675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:45:14 -0800

At 3:23 PM -0500 12/9/98, Dave Crocker wrote:
> appears two years before the event).

Not quite sure how marking a few rows of chairs in each meeting room 
cause these kinds of consequences (sorta like weddings and funerals). 
Maybe it wouldn't be effective, but it sure seems like a simple idea. 
People attending those events tend to respect the markers.  So it's 
not totally insane.

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:45:14 -0800

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:54:38 -0500

>People attending those events tend to respect the markers.  So it's 

they don't cause those kinds of consequences.  the strategic changes are
for the purpose of eliminating the logistics problems, rather than trying
to find ways to accomodate them.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:54:38 -0500

d/

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:44:36 -0800

> to find ways to accomodate them.

I think the fundamental issue here is whether we wish to practice an 
open-door policy.  That is the key decision.  My objection to Perry's 
suggestion is based on the implicit choice it makes to close the 
door.  In effect, it promotes the idea there is a special class of 
participants who qualify to participate (hardy in winter, cool in the 
summer...).  Rather, we should encourage anyone to participate and, 
by their interest, dedication, and commitment advance to the front of 
the room.  We should not, however, create obstacles for anyone 
wanting to come in the door.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  All actions are wrought by the qualities of nature only.
  The self, deluded by egoism, thinketh, "I am the doer."
  -- Bhagavad Gita
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:44:36 -0800

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:23:06 -0500

>participants who qualify to participate (hardy in winter, cool in the 

I very much favor open door.  In fact I believe it is the essence of our
success.  We just need to deal with scaling issues (...).

I'm suggesting we do it with bigger rooms (and hallways), rather than
bigger sticks.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:23:06 -0500

d/

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:30:02 -0500

> if they are clearly going to be very comfortable for the group.

The more I think about it, the more reasonable that sounds. If it
turns out that there are a couple of really great hotels to hold
things in, we should just keep going back. True, it is boring, but we
are going to work anyway.

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:30:02 -0500

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:05:31 -0500

Shockingly, I think I may have a better suggestion than Ottowa in
winter to make.

> I'm suggesting we do it with bigger rooms (and hallways), rather than

I was at some meetings over the week with very small numbers of
participants, and some with huge numbers.

IMPP was a good example of a small meeting. Substantive issues got
hashed out very efficiently, and the participants got to meet each
other and learn how to work together. OpenPGP was fairly small and had 
a similar feel. IPSec, on the other hand, might as well have been a
series of lectures held in a stadium. In a room past a certain size,
you no longer have a meeting and start having a presentation. There is 
no way to help this. You lose something with the huge rooms.

If we are unable to help the expansion, we are going to have to start
taking measures to assure that we can actually get enough work done.

One thing that has occurred to me is that we could start making
increased use of the now largely forgotten "design team"
concept. Design teams are small and collegial, and if we increased
their use, we could regain some of the collegial feeling and rapid
progress that is possible in the smaller working group meetings.

Since design teams are not required to have open meetings, they would
never suffer from the "stadium problem". Since working groups still
always review all the work of a design team in detail, we wouldn't be
losing open review -- just eliminating the attempt to do design work 
an in-person committee of 250 people.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:05:31 -0500

Perry

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:08:28 -0800

> are going to work anyway.

It seems to work for Comdex -- not that Comdex is a particularly 
shining example of meeting I like to attend...

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:08:28 -0800

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:13:23 -0500

>increased use of the now largely forgotten "design team"

they might be forgotten in your part of the IETF, Perry, but they are alive
and well in the Apps area.  I believe they have always been a fact of life
and always will be, so it's only a matter of making them (semi-)official
and the IETF docs do that.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:13:23 -0500

d/

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:31:16 -0500

>At 12/11/98:08:13 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

Hi Dave and Perry,

>and the IETF docs do that.

Yes, I'd have to say that the use of "core design teams" has been
a bit more common in the Network Management WGs (Ops Area) in recent
years.  Overall, while there is occasionally a gripe about "backroom
exchanges" (my own feeble made up term), in general I think most
people would agree that the process works fairly well.  In this
too, however, I think it remains an on-going WG Chair/Area Advisor
role to ensure that this tool is not mis-used...ie., it's really
just a way to get work off to a good, solid start...and not a way
to by-pass the better judgment of the larger WG...and no one says
that the make-up of the core design team might not have to change
over time...or that only they are the document "authors"...or that
contributions from outside the core design team should not be
explicitly recognized in the "official" outputs of the WG...etc.

Cordially,

BobN
---- ISO 9001 Registered, H/W & S/W Products| NASDAQ: ACEC -----
Bob Natale          | ACE*COMM              | 301-721-3000 [v]
Dir, Net Mgmt Prod  | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f]
[email-masked] | Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com
----- WinSNMP DLL, SDK, Apps & Agents for Win16/32 & UNIX ------
------ WinSNMP specs and sample code at www.winsnmp.com --------

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:31:16 -0500

Hi Dave and Perry,

Cordially,

BobN
----- WinSNMP DLL, SDK, Apps & Agents for Win16/32 & UNIX ------
------ WinSNMP specs and sample code at www.winsnmp.com --------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:26:03 +0000

Any WG Chair that wants to use the design team approach has only
to do so, after consulting with the Area Director. There is
nothing to resurrect.

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:26:03 +0000

Brian

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:37:34 -0500

> to do so, after consulting with the Area Director. There is

I suppose I really meant "make more regular use of". Some areas do not 
make sufficient use of design teams.

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:37:34 -0500

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:57:32 -0500

>make sufficient use of design teams.

This gets to the heart of the more serious issue, namely working group
management.  

Previous documentation and formalization of working group management has
attended to the building blocks, such as giving formal position for design
teams, and emphasizing to working group chairs the kinds of authority (and
expectations) that reside in the working group.

Perhaps we should go the next level and document some guidance about the
best ways to run different "categories" of working groups?  A WG with a
relatively straightforward deliverable and a relatively small and
homogeneous participation base can use a very different management style
from one that has complex (poorly understood) goals, and large or
heterogeneous participation base.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:57:32 -0500

d/

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 98 7:24:46 JST

Perry;

It does not help to stop IETF WGs do meaningless things, which is
more serious problem than the number of participants.

> Anyone have any thoughts?

An obvious solution is to make IETF participation purely
voluntary with no corporate funding not even for travel
expense to IETF meetings.

Then, people, especially WG chairs, who are solely acting for their
companies, will disappear.

Design teams, on the other hand, makes the problem worse by makeing
the process more closed.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 98 7:24:46 JST

Perry;

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:17:19 +0100 (MET)

I've now received at least 100 mails from a small (<5%) subset of the IETF
attendants complaining about this meeting.

Actually, I thought that this was one of the best IETF's from the 4 or 5
that I attended over the last 2 years:

1. In the 6 WG's and BOF's that I attended, I was able to find a chair,
   even though I had to occasionally ask people to remove their laptop
   from that chair.
2. Overall, the contents of the discussion was good.  Sure, a few slides
   could have been omitted and occasionally the discussion wasn't really
   about thing that the IETF should discuss, but that doesn't make them
   useless either.
3. Also, I prefer a short introduction to a talk above an author who
   does a diff on two versions of a draft, then puts the results on a
   slide and reads that aloud.
4. Thanks to the fact that most slides were done in Powerpoint or similar
   packages, slides were prefectly readable in the back of the room. 
4a. The use of 2 screens in the Plenary was a major improvement w.r.t.
   the previous meetings.
5. The terminal room had enough seats so I never had to wait
   for a free screen.

Altogether, I thought that this was an extremely useful meeting.  Am I the
only one who thinks so, or does the silent 95% majority agree with me. In
the either case, can we please stop this discussion and get on with our
work. 

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: [email-masked]
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.535-4414,  Fax -4445
1016 AB Amsterdam                   Home: +31.20.4195305
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:17:19 +0100 (MET)

Henk

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:31:08 -0500

> 5. The terminal room had enough seats so I never had to wait

Agreed.  This was the first IETF that I've ever attended that I never 
had to wait for a laptop ethernet port to free up.  

Our host, and the terminal room folks, deserve a gold star for this one.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:31:08 -0500

Keith

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:20:48 +0100

> Our host, and the terminal room folks, deserve a gold star for this one.

One from me aswell! Well done!

  paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:20:48 +0100

paf

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:56:22 -0800 (PST)

> One from me aswell! Well done!

Agreed. The terminal room in Orlando was excellent.

				Ned

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:56:22 -0800 (PST)

Ned

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:02:59 -0500

>Our host, and the terminal room folks, deserve a gold star for this one.
Perhaps it was the building layout, but I never really had problems with
the wireless either.  Just about everywhere I was meeting-wise, my 2.4Ghz
roamabout worked.  I did have some connectivity challenges outside in the
area next to the conference center, but that was just about it.

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:02:59 -0500