Subject: Reducing parallel meeting slots

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 08:10:55 -0700

Aaron,

AF> Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the 
AF> IETF meeting.  For example, try to come up with some objective criteria 
AF> for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc.

Although there are some exceptions, we generally treat IETF resources as
being free.  Since they are in fact very expensive and often are very
scarce, I think that any effort to do better resource allocation would
be very helpful for IETF productivity.

Certainly this should include productivity requirements for getting
meeting slots.  Rather than trying to create more slots (more days or
more simultaneous meetings) we should be looking for ways to REDUCE the
number of parallel (conflicting) meetings.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 08:24:42 -0700

Fred,

FB> IMHO, the charter of a working group is a contract-of-sorts to accomplish
FB> something. If a working group has no future milestones, I can't imagine why 
FB> it is meeting - at minimum, it should be (IMHO) in the process of 
FB> rechartering (which is a milestone in its own right). I would like to see 
FB> working groups held to their chartered work plans, and rechartered if the 
FB> work-plan changes.

My sense is that there is rough consensus on the sentiments you express,
but this does not seem to translate into particular actions.

As you note, for example, we are still authorizing some pretty awful
charters.  In particular, they cannot serve as wg project management
reference documents.  That is, they do not contain information that
really permits assessing focus and scope (what the working group must
work on) or progress (whether it is being productive in satisfying its
goals.)

FB> I will only tell you how I found them. I went to
FB> see whether there was an obvious example of a working group that was 
FB> outside its charter.

So the first idea, for translating into action, is to do an audit of the
charter regularly. This is not a new idea, of course, but such reviews
do not seem to be getting done. If this is going to be a serious tool, I
think it needs to be done by more than Area Directors. We need to have
review and enforcement of milestones be a priority WITHIN working
groups.

It is not that participants cannot raise such concerns now, it is that
they generally don't.  In other words, we need a cultural change that
encourage participants -- most especially chairs -- to raise progress
questions and get them resolved.

FB> I went to www.ietf.org, clicked on "working groups", 
FB> clicked on the area at the top of the list, and clicked on the first 
FB> working group under that area. This working group has two milestones that 
FB> are past and a number that are future, and no notation of whether they have 
FB> met their milestones or not. I then clicked on the second working group in 
FB> that area, and found the following:

FB> Consider the dates: what is the argument for this WG meeting? Someone needs
FB> to sit down and very specifically ask "what in the world is happening? Is 
FB> this WG moribund and in need of some merciful person to put it out of its 
FB> misery? If not, what is the real plan for its future?"

YES!

The simplistic criteria for getting a slot should be:

    -  What will be accomplished at the meeting?

    -  How will that constitute wg progress?

    -  Why should anyone believe the meeting will accomplish its goals?

Unfortunately, all 3 questions are essential.

d/

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:56:40 +0200

> number of parallel (conflicting) meetings.

...it doesn't address the problem of overlapping sessions. Sessions are 
going to overlap. This is only a problem when people want to attend 
more than one during any particular slot. The fact that people want to 
attend a session makes it highly unlikely that such a session is so 
unproductive that scrapping it alltoghether would be better. (I don't 
believe IETFers are so stupid they keep showing up for unproductive 
sessions.)

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:48:23 -0700

--On 22. juli 2004 10:55 -0700 Aaron Falk <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the
> IETF meeting.  For example, try to come up with some objective criteria
> for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc.  This  might even
> nudge groups into making some additional progress  ("you can't have your
> meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones").

note - there aren't that many multiple-slot WGs.
Here's the list a quick scan came up with for this meeting:

avt--
dnsext--
geopriv-- (2x1h)
l2vpn-- (2x1h)
marid--
mip6--
nsis--
radext--
rohc-- (2x1h)
simple--
sip--
sipping--
v6ops--
xcon--
aaa-- (2x1h)
opsec-- (2x1h)

16, out of which 5 clearly are 2-hour requests that were put into 1-hour 
slots. So outlawing double-slot WGs altogehter gives us 11 more slots to 
play with.

That's more than adding a Thursday evening slot gives us - but it's not 
much..... if we want to do something that really reduces demand for slots, 
we have to force the "normal" size of a meeting down to 1 hour (somehow).

Personally, I'm as worried about this list:

adslmib
atompub
bridge
disman
ediint
fax
idmr
idwg
impp
iporpr
ipp
ipr
ipsec
ipseckey
ipsp
iptel
kink
l2tpext
megaco
mipshop
msgtrk
nntpext
openpgp
policy
pppext
problem
ptomaine
rap
sacred
seamoby
secsh
send
sigtran
snmpconf
spirits
ssm
stime
syslog
tewg
tls
trade
usefor
vpim
xmpp
zeroconf

It's the set of WGs that are (based on my quick count) NOT meeting in San 
Diego - 46 WGs. Some (like ipr and problem) are just waiting for their RFCs 
to pop out before closing down.... but others may not be....

Assuming no liability for possible errors.....

                 Harald

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:21:35 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Iljitsch" == Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]> writes:
    Iljitsch> ...it doesn't address the problem of overlapping
    Iljitsch> sessions. Sessions are going to overlap. This is only a
    Iljitsch> problem when people want to attend more than one during
    Iljitsch> any particular slot. The fact that people want to attend a
    Iljitsch> session makes it highly unlikely that such a session is so
    Iljitsch> unproductive that scrapping it alltoghether would be
    Iljitsch> better. (I don't believe IETFers are so stupid they keep
    Iljitsch> showing up for unproductive sessions.)

  I can think of a number of BOFs, and even some WGs that are very well
attended, but have not made any progress.
  
  My original contention was that these groups are either stuck, or they
have the *wrong amount* of face time. They get two hours, sometimes four
(over two days). 

  Yet, to make the decision they need to progress, they really need
three days of intensive time, and they probably need to have a smaller
(more manageable) group attending.

  Finally, as has been discussed previously (particularly during our
peak, when we didn't fit in the hotels anymore), with wireless, people
can occupy seats and not pay attention. 

- --
]     "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson         |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:55:54 +0200

On 5-aug-04, at 15:21, Michael Richardson wrote:

>     Iljitsch> The fact that people want to attend a

> attended, but have not made any progress.

The trouble is, that even if you can define success fully (which is 
difficult enough in its own right), that still makes it very hard to 
impossible to determine which efforts are going to turn out successful 
a) beforehand and b) somewhere along the way.

> My original contention was that these groups are either stuck

Yes. Unfortunately the IETF doesn't seem to have any way to arrive at 
decisions other than wait, wait some more and  until at some point 
rough consensus happens. The whole IPv6 resolver issue in dnsop is a 
good example of this problem.

> (more manageable) group attending.

I don't see how sitting in a room for three days is going to achieve 
something that doing the same for a shorter time + offline preparation 
can't.

> can occupy seats and not pay attention.

I have some pictures of people playing games on their laptops which 
prove that it's not the fault of the wireless network.  :-)

Much of what happens in sessions is very uninteresting, either for the 
people who've read the drafts OR the people who haven't. (Hopefully not 
both...)

Personally, I would be much happier to keep all the nasty details on 
the mailing lists and use the meeting sessions to talk about what the 
wg is doing for a larger audience. That would probably lead to good 
feedback from people who aren't on the wg mailinglist.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf