![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.
I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that meetings are run counter to this goal.
I sat in an session outside my area of experience and heard this from the first speaker, "if you haven't read the drafts, you shouldn't participate here. Therefore I will not have slides and dive into the details." As this was outside my area of experience, I had not taken the time to read up on the session. I figured that having scribed for it at the previous meeting would give me enough cover.
Before each speaker in that session, the question "who has read" was asked, with few hands going up each time. It would be far more helpful to try to be "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" towards us tourists.
If the IETF wants to foster cross-fertilization, which is the reason for the mass enclaves, then temper the theme of "you must have read all the drafts." Temper, not "remove." Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is all I'm asking.
IMO, the purpose of a Working Group meeting is to gather people together to work. If 40 out of 45 people come to the meeting totally unprepared to work on the stated agenda, then don't be surprised if you don't get any work done. The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists with slideware.
If the purpose of all our face to face meetings is to foster cross-area review and not for WGs to get any work done, then I guess this is not a problem. IMO, 1 out of 3 of these non-work-oriented meetings would be plenty, and 3 out of 3 is clearly harming productivity.
Andy
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.