IETF 101, London, UK Wednesday, 21 March 2018 WG Chairs Lunch Session Link to agenda slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-edu-sessc-agenda-00 1. Alexa Morris and Stephanie McCammon, IETF Secretariat Managing conflicts and how to make the IETF better for everyone Link to slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-edu-sessc-secretariat-managing-conflicts-00 The questions of first, second an third priority for WG slots has been discussed by the IESG. They are considering to only have first and second priority. Discussion: Kent Watson suggested to take the attendance numbers for a particular session and the IETF meeting as a whole into account, because some IETF meetings have higher attendance numbers than others. Carsten Bormann said it would be useful to have a file on github so WG chairs can send the session request from there. JSON would also work. Andy Malis suggested to open the scheduling tools before all the BoFs are known or to finalise the lists of BoFs earlier. That would make it easier to detect potential scheduling conflicts. Al Morton added that it would be helpful if the IESG could send a mail to all session chairs once the BoFs are approved and scheduled. Jonathan Lennox (?) asked to send more reminders to the chairs and at the same time send the list of scheduled BoFs. He also noted that the bluesheets have actual start and end times and that it would be helpful to inform chairs about how long the chair actually lasted. Barry Leiba wondered what the purpose of the four levels are that were proposed on the slides Stephanie and Alexa showed. He further explained the three levels of priority and why they are important to WG chairs. He added that it would be useful to find out early on if another WG thinks that it cannot be in conflict with his WG. Someone else asked not to leave decisions to the last minute, because this make travel arrangements more difficult. David Black suggested WG chairs could list conflicts with BoF candidates (even before they are approved). Stephanie clarifies how BoFs are registered in the datatracker in the “special request” field. (Stephanie, do you want to add something here?) Karen agrees that all those special requests should actually be in the special requests field Juan Carlos Zuniga said that a little more dynamic would be helpful: often the chairs already know beforehand what the group would conflict with. Alternatively adding one more cycle could be useful before the actual publication of the agenda. David Waltermire thanked the secretariat for all their work to deal with this mess (Applause!) and asked if there is anything the WG chairs can help with? Stephanie responded that the special request field really helps and urges WG chairs to also specify if only parts of the meeting should not conflict for instance. Barry Leiba suggested the IESG could help by moving the deadlines: three weeks before the BoF call; only then issue the BoF call. And then use the remaining time to discuss potential conflicts. (Stephanie, I am not sure what Barry meant here). 2. Stephanie McCammon, IETF Secretariat Stephanie went through some of the things people usually asks her: Q: Can we meet at a particular day of the meeting week? If people clearly specify if there is a specific day or a range of days they want to meet, the secretariat will not ignore that request. Q: Where are my bluesheet? The bluesheets are usually on the clipboard on the desk or in the folder that is also on the desk in the meeting room Q: What is the red button on the desk for? It unmutes the Meetecho queue. Q: What to do in case of A/V issues? Please send a ticket to mtd@ietf.org (stands for “meeting trouble desk”) or just grab Stephanie when she is in the room. It’s usually easy to figure out before the meeting starts. Q: Where are the clickers to change the slides? The clickers are in every room on the desk in front. They usually work, but if they don’t please find Stephanie. Someone suggested to send short reminders about this to all WG chairs before the meeting. Stephanie said that the Secretariat is considering to put together a short video explaining all this. Pete Resnick mentioned that none of this is in the current WG chairs meeting info on the website. He was also wondering what happened to the experiment about the different room set up. Stephanie said she will find out. Karen said that we (the Edu Team together with the WG chairs) really need to take a look at all the WG chairs training material and onboarding for new WG chairs. Someone mentioned that he had never heard anything about WG chairs training material. Dave Thaler had an advice for people that have problems with the projector: he suggested to lower your screen resolution if there are projection issues. 3. Charles Eckel: The IETF Hackathon and it’s relation to progressing work in the IETF Link to slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-edu-sessc-hackathon-00 Someone was wondering if those hackathon participants who wen’t staying for the IETF meeting, were local. Charles responded that this is indeed predominantly the case. Great to see that quite a number of hackathon projects were presented during WG or RG sessions during the week. Linda Dunbar suggested to organise an intro to TCP/IP and the IETF for highschool kids (maybe remotely). Thomas Watteyne said that he used the code lounge quite a bit and likes the idea. He suggested to add some info to the code lounge wiki saying who is responsible for what project. Charles asked to let him know if there is anything else they could do in the hackathon. David Black praised the hackathon team! “Very well done. Keep it up!” —— 4. Open Mic Session Karen suggested to set up a design team to review material that is currently available for WG chairs and look at how to improve it (for new WG chairs, but also ongoing material for more experienced WG chairs) Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged the efforts John Scudder did with the doc on how to present at WG session. It was very useful and it would be good to expand it so that more WGs can make use of it. Tim Chown: +1 Dave Thaler: +1. He agreed that if we can come up with a more generic version, it would be even more useful. But he wondered where we would put such a document? What would be the best way to make presenters aware of it? Charles Eckel added that a template could be a good help. John Scudder clarified that in his WG it goes in the call for topics. Someone suggested to send a link to the newcomers tutorial, some of the things are explained in there. Mirjam added that the Edu Team also has a document that we send to tutorial presenters. David Waltermire and Jeff Haas volunteered to be in the design team described above. Karen will send a mail to the WG chairs list to ask for more volunteers.