Subject: Re: this is insane.

From: Gunnar Lindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:27:07 +0100

Nice try. But, would you start questioning people about draft content?
Otherwise, this will only increase the amount of ego-aggressive people
that are quite common in the IETF already (no particular persons or
countries mentioned).

The problem is real, though, and the quesion is only how to solve it
without flushing the baby out with the water. An important input to
that might be whether the increased number of participant is because
people from more countries come or there are simple more people from
the already active countries.

	Gunnar Lindberg

>From [email-masked]  Wed Dec  9 06:52:58 1998
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: this is insane. 
>Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 00:28:56 -0500
>From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>

>I would remind people that it is in order for Working Group chairs to
>give front seating preference to those who have read the drafts and
>presumably someone attempting to attend a WG meeting that was over
>crowded and had read the drafts could request this.

>Donald

>From:  "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
>To:  [email-masked]
>Reply-To:  [email-masked]
>Date:  08 Dec 1998 16:35:55 -0500
>Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

>>The meeting is just too big. I have missed two working group meetings
>>today because rooms were too crowded. We have to do something about
>>the problem, and holding meetings in football arenas is NOT the
>>answer.
>>
>>Perry

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:48:59 -0800 (PST)

The IETF is an important organization. It attracts both active
participants and "observers". We can try to solve the problem by having
meetings in expensive and hard-to-get-to locations, but this neither seems
fair nor will it necessarily solve the problem in the long run. (Oslo
should be an interesting experiment, Adelaide even more so).

We could give preferential seating to working group "members" and let them
into the room before the curious (observers). [Defining a member could
turn into its own long discussion, but I think you get the general
concept: an active participant with knowledge of the draft(s)].
Administering this would be difficult, but like most other things in the
IETF, the honor system might work. We don't police access to meeting
rooms currently (except for the terminal room) and going to a model where
you have to have the right colored badge to enter a room doesn't seem
very attractive.

Ultimately, the IETF probably needs to move to convention centers and this
unfortunately raises the cost considerably.

If there was a simple solution to this problem, we would probably have
implemented it already.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen               |       ||        ||        |
Editor and Publisher          |       ||        ||        |
The Internet Protocol Journal |      ||||      ||||       |
Tel: +1 408-527-8972          |  ..:||||||:..:||||||:..   |
e-mail: [email-masked]         |  C i s c o S y s t e m s  |
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

VP for Chapters, The Internet Society.
See you @ INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25. http://www.isoc.org/inet99/
See you @ APRICOT '99, Singapore, March 1-5. http://www.apricot.net/

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:48:59 -0800 (PST)

Ole

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:42:02 -0800

> concept: an active participant with knowledge of the draft(s)].

Well we reserve a set at the front of the room for the WG chair.  Why 
not also mark rows of seats for editors and authors, implementors, 
list commentators, lurkers and the curious.  In the weeks before the 
meeting, announce that we will follow this seating policy in meeting 
rooms, and let the WG participants police it on their own. 
Presumably active participants will be able recognize each other, at 
least by name.  This is essentially the honor system, but it is an 
honor system with a plan.

An honor system does rely on the members honoring and respecting each 
other, but we do that anyway, right?

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: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:42:02 -0800

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:30:00 -0800

At 10:42 AM -0800 12/9/98, John  W. Noerenberg wrote:
> list commentators, lurkers and the curious.

How about reservations for the peripheral seats, next to the electrical
outlets?  :-)

Steve

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:30:00 -0800

Steve

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:42:38 -0800

> How about reservations for the peripheral seats, next to the electrical

Surely that would lead to laser pointers at 10 paces duels in the 
halls.  As entertaining as that might be, that's probably not 
helpful.  However more outlets in meeting rooms is definitely not 
insane. <grin>

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:42:38 -0800

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:53:36 +0000

> > We could give preferential seating to working group "members" [...]

> list commentators, lurkers and the curious. 

I don't believe that the real problem (if there is one) is that the active
people can't participate.  Rather, the sheer logistical complication of
setting up a meeting for 200 when only 8 are actually contributing.

There is nothing at all wrong with observers per see, but given the content
of most meetings (getting right into details that require background to
understand), I doubt that many of them are getting much out of it.  I
personally don't care where we have the meetings - I rarely manage to find
time to leave the hotel anyway.

-- 
Scott Lawrence           Director of R & D        <[email-masked]>
Agranat Systems, Inc.  Embedded Web Technology   http://www.agranat.com/

---

From: Scott Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:53:36 +0000

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:20:56 -0800

At 3:53 PM +0000 12/11/98, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> understand), I doubt that many of them are getting much out of it.

To me this sounds like a contradiction.  If only 8 are actually 
participating, why would that attract an audience of 200?  Most 
protocol discussions, even the contentious ones, aren't that 
entertaining.  However, if this in fact is what happens, you are 
right, one part of this is a logistical problem.  But that is largely 
a matter of making sure the right size room is chosen.

I agree that many of the merely curious stand little to gain. 
Underlying my suggestion are two things.  We should insure that 
active members of the group have a reasonable shot at hearing each 
other without having to rely on microphones.  I have been in crowded 
meeting rooms where it is difficult and frustrating for active 
participants to successfully interact.  Secondly, we should promote 
the idea that active participation merits special consideration.  In 
this way the curious and motivated, but uniformed will decide on 
their own to do what is necessary to get them to where the action is 
during the meeting.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:20:56 -0800

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:25:35 -0500

>At 12/11/98:01:20 PM, John  W. Noerenberg wrote:

Hi John,

<...>
>their own to do what is necessary to get them to where the action is 

I think those are very sensible suggestions...and I fail to see why
the meeting leader (WG chair, BOF organizer, etc.) can't meet those
goals.  Much of any failures to do so, I believe, must rest with that
person's failure to either pre-plan and/or to manage the course of
the meeting.  Physcial seating arrangements and specific agenda items
are under his/her control ahead of time.  Managing the live "flow" of
the meeting can be more difficult, but is certainly within the purview
of the person running the meeting.

None of the above is meant to thrawt the liberal use of "open mike",
Q&A, "new business items", etc...indeed, we all want to encourage that
...*after* the basic objectives of the given meeting are addressed.

I guess we go into this assuming that all WG chair and BOF organizers
are skilled meeting managers...maybe they're not...and maybe that's
the crux of the problem...if so, maybe the solution is something like:

   - more concrete meeting guidelines from the Secretariat, eg.:
        - feedback applied to Agenda pre-submissions (eg.: "too
          vague", "too many items for the time", etc.)
        - a "nuts n' bolts" list of meeting management techniques,
          (eg.: "promote prepared presentation", "seat presenters
          and active participants at the front", "enforce time and
          topic constraints", etc.)
   - more focused "meeting management" training for WG chairs
     and BOF organizers [i.e., an augmentation of or an adjunt
     to the current WG Chairs training session]
   - "meeting evaluation" forms--hardcopy and/or online--asking
     attendees for feedback to specific questions about how well
     a meeting was managed by the chair.
   - etc.

In closing let me just say that I personally don't see a huge
problem in the existing state of affairs that mandates some
radical change...clearly there is room for improvement.  However,
rather than continuing the (hopeless and probably counter-productive)
attempt to limit attendance, I just think we should focus on better
meeting planning (by which I mean "preparation") and meeting management
...and most of the onus for those improvements should rest on the
shoulders of the individual(s) running the meeting, IMHO.

Cordially,

BobN
------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier -----------
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
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:25:35 -0500

Hi John,

<...>

Cordially,

BobN
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:06:12 -0800

At 3:25 PM -0500 12/11/98, Bob Natale wrote:
> the crux of the problem...

You've put your finger on the essential problem.  Your suggestions 
for helping chairs to plan and better training to conduct meetings 
are well-conceived.  However, they impose new costs in time and 
commitment on the Secretariat to provide the feedback and training, 
and, if adopted, they will take time to become effective.  What I was 
after are some simple tricks we can do now to alleviate immediate 
problems.  That would give your longer-term suggestions some time to 
take hold.

WG Chairs are generally drawn for those who are interested in solving 
the problem before the WG. That doesn't guarantee meeting management 
skill.  Arming Chairs with some simple techniques they can adopt may 
well make their meetings more productive for all.

I don't for a minute think my suggestions are the only thing that 
could be done, or the best thing that could be done.  Nor do I think 
they are any more than palliative.  But easing the symptoms are often 
a means to treating a deeper disease.

best,

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:06:12 -0800

best,

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:06:26 -0500

> well make their meetings more productive for all.

At SHARE (the IBM mainframe user's group), session chairs are
provided with templates with fill-in-the-blank form, and they
give 2 1-hour sessions before the main events start, one on
being a session chair, and one on being a speaker(*).

This system seems to work pretty well.  We'd probably have
to change a few things to account for the fact that these
are more "working groups" than "presentations"..

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

(*) Dr Robert Rannie's presentation on being an effective
speaker is a classic....

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:06:26 -0500

Valdis Kletnieks

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:37:00 -0500

>setting up a meeting for 200 when only 8 are actually contributing.

I strongly disagree.  Most working groups have developed a pretty similar
-- and I feel that it is a reasonably efficient -- means of running their
meetings.  If anything, the larger size tends to make meeting management
more disciplined and that's not such a bad thing.  I think it is quite rare
for the onlookers to cause meaningful problems... as long as the room is
large enough and the audio system works.

and getting large rooms is seriously not rocket science, nor particularly
expensive.

>understand), I doubt that many of them are getting much out of it.  I

on the contrary, such people seem to get quite a bit from their attendance,
although not necessarily what you or I might want to get from a protocol
design meeting.  they often get these same things, too, but they also get a
sense of the process, the status of the work, the quality of the work,
directions the industry is heading, etc.  These are non-trivial pieces of
information, and highly useful.

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: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:37:00 -0500

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:10:56 -0500

>commitment on the Secretariat to provide the feedback and training, 

In response to just this problem, some years ago, I started do give Working
Group Chair training classes at every IETF meeting.  They have been
continued by others, ever since, and seem to be quite helpful.

I tend to believe that difficult topics also should be sure to have a
working group chair that is familiar with IETF process/style management.  

If the primary content comes from outside traditional IETF topics, then
there should be a co-chair for content and a co-chair for process.  Some
challenge the efficacy of this model.  My guess is that the critical issue
is whether the process-oriented chair is particularly knowledgeable and
assertive about project managing the working group towards making progress.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:10:56 -0500

d/

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:54:06 -0500

Dave,

I would point out that the process documents specifically provide for
the optional appointment of a Working Group Facilitator who is, in
effect, a "co-chiar for [working group] process" such as you suggest
below.

Donald

From:  Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
X-Sender:  [email-masked]
Date:  Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:10:56 -0500
In-Reply-To:  <v0410370cb29736c2a7c5@[129.46.172.254]>
References:  <[email-masked]>
	     <v04103702b2970f275958@[129.46.172.254]>
	     <[email-masked]>
	     <[email-masked]>
	     <v04103609b29473a97963@[129.46.172.254]>

>>...

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:54:06 -0500

Dave,

Donald

---

From: RL Bob Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:10:45 -0800 (PST)

> list commentators, lurkers and the curious.

Based on personal experience last week, I observe that an excellent way to
get a seat at the front of a crowded IETF meeting room is to hobble in on
crutches.  This works even if one is not a well-known Area Director.  I
suspect that this scheme doesn't scale, however.

 - RL "Bob" Morgan
   Stanford

---

From: RL Bob Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:10:45 -0800 (PST)

- RL "Bob" Morgan
   Stanford

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:10:16 -0500

> I personally don't care where we have the meetings - I rarely manage
> to find time to leave the hotel anyway.

I would really like to see the meetings always held someplace where
there's decent public transportation from the airport, a decent hotel,
and a good variety of restaurants within walking distance of the
hotel.   As several people have observed, a lot of IETF work gets done
at dinner or in the bar before and after the actual sessions that
people attend, so making it possible for this out-of-band activity to
proceed without the need for an hour drive to the nearest decent
restaurant would be a big plus.

Cities that do a reasonable job of qualifying for this (IMHO) include:

- New Orleans - the French quarter is dense with good restaurants.
- Boston - excellent public transit and several high-density
	   restaurant neighborhoods.
- Manhattan - excellent public transit, excellent restaurants
- Maybe Chicago - Not perfect, but the area around the hotel at the last
		  IETF worked out reasonably well.   It still wouldn't
		  be my first choice.
- NOT Orlando - There are literally no good restaurants within driving
	        distance of Kissimmee because the average Disney World
		tourist is looking for a good place to feed kids.   I
		didn't get the impression that downtown Orlando was
		any better.
- NOT LA - even though LA theoretically has a decent downtown, you
	   still have to drive everywhere.
- NOT San Jose - Public transit doesn't really connect to the
	         neighborhoods with the good food, nor are there
		 hotels in those neighborhoods, so you still need a
		 car.
- Old San Diego (not the outlying resort complexes or downtown)
- Seattle, downtown - lots of good restaurants and places to hang out.
- Not Redmond - there are nice places there, but it's far too spread
  out to be reasonable for a group the size of IETF.

I don't claim that this is an exhaustive list - for example, it
doesn't cover any non-U.S. cities, many of which would be stellar
places to meet, but I think it conveys the idea - we need places with
dense, vibrant culture, not malls, downtown or otherwise.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:10:16 -0500

_MelloN_

---

From: Adam M Donahue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:38:38 -0500 (EST)

Another problem:  the scheduling of these things during USENIX.  Last
week's meeting overlapped, and apparently so will the next one.  

Adam

---

From: Adam M Donahue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:38:38 -0500 (EST)

Adam

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:39:48 -0500

>suspect that this scheme doesn't scale, however.

For the Hawaii IETF, some years ago, a truly wonderful t-shirt was
designed, with the title "Nerds in Paradise".

Methinks your note suggests an interesting one for this latest meeting,
with someone rolling their speeding wheel-chair through a crowd -- knocking
people over? -- to the front of the room.

"Guaranteed seating, in an overcrowded IETF" doesn't have quite the
pithiness of "same day delivery in a nanosecond world" but.

Or perhaps it should be labeled "Survival of the sittest".

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:39:48 -0500

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:58:38 -0500

>week's meeting overlapped, and apparently so will the next one.  

The scheduling problem is solved by scheduling earlier.  Two years ahead is
the required deadline.  The only way to do this, most of the time, is to do
away with the expectation of having a host.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:58:38 -0500

d/