Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent

From: Hascall Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:45:40 -0400

On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
...snip...
> Am I missing something?
...snip...

Yes.  The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is 
required in order to participate effectively in the work.

It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of 
meetings.

But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever 
expanding travel budget.

chip

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:42:08 -0700

> required in order to participate effectively in the work.

We have the same number as when I started attending around ietf 37.

> It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of

We have more working groups having online virtual interims, the
workplace of reference for virtually all working groups remains the
mailing list, that I think is demonstrative of the opposite.

> But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever

not likely.

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:47:38 -0500

At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote:

>Yes.  The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence 
>is required in order to participate effectively in the work.

Creating the ability to mimic or replicate the effectiveness of a WG 
meeting is only part of the benefit of attendance at an IETF.  Many 
of us that have been going there for years and years have the benefit 
of chance/rendezvous meetings in the hallway to discuss a topic

- that we didn't know was being discussed, or
- that we may now find ourselves in the middle of, or
- that a small group might want to have outside of the main 
discussion area/session, or
- etc

Many of us have lots of ideas bantering around in our heads between 
meetings (or that have been dormant for a while) that this type of 
chance meeting could generate something of a meeting-of-the-minds 
about starting something new or something different that how it's done now.

Many newcomers - whether this is their actual first meeting or just 
in their first few meetings - actively or passively seek out certain 
individuals for the possibility of having such a planned chance 
meeting in a hallway.

None of this can effectively be done with IETF meetings moving to 
webex or worse, only on email.

That said - I fully understand the financial burdens on people or 
corporations during non-robust years of economic (non) growth, such 
as we're in the middle of.

JMO, which could be wrong

James

>It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of meetings.
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:55:21 -0800

> We have the same number as when I started attending around ietf 37.

It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do
work in the IETF without being physically present at
meetings, as well.  The audio streaming has gotten
really excellent but that's one-way - there's far less
support for Jabber participation (possibly as a result
of the great audio), and for providing input from
remote locations.  There also seems to be a cultural
shift and expectations have changed.  There was one
session at the last meeting in which the chairs asked
for volunteers to do work between that meeting and
the next one, but only from people who were actually
present in the meeting room at the time.  It's also
more common to take "votes" and then announce the
results on mailing lists.  

It could be that chairs need more training or it could
be that there's a broader cultural shift, but my 
perception, as someone who's both been to a lot of meetings
and done a lot of remote participation, is the same
as Chip's.  (My answer is probably different; I think 
that if this is the way IETF participants prefer things,
it should be institutionalized rather than papered over).

Melinda

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:59:30 -0400

For various reasons, I have participated in the last 3 meetings 
"remotely."

While I am very grateful for the technical tools (streaming audio, jabber 
room, etc.) that make such "remote participation" possible, it is in no 
way a substitute for the greater level of interaction I get when attending 
the meeting in person.

Furthermore, I am willing to get up a 3 AM (my time) to "attend" a WG in 
which I already have an active interest.  But I am less likely to get up 
at 3 AM for a WG that "sounds as if it MIGHT be interesting".  When I am 
there in person, I am more likely to go to that "MIGHT be interesting" 
meeting.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.

From:
"James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
To:
Hascall Sharp <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date:
09/07/2010 04:47 PM
Subject:
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent

Many of us have lots of ideas bantering around in our heads between 
meetings (or that have been dormant for a while) that this type of 
chance meeting could generate something of a meeting-of-the-minds 
about starting something new or something different that how it's done 
now.

James

meetings.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:08:04 -0400

<absolutely no hats>

On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> meetings, as well.

When I first started coming to the IETF regularly in 1999, I rapidly concluded that I needed to
attent (more or less) every meeting to make much of an impact. That's just my
opinion, but it would still be my recommendation. 

>  The audio streaming has gotten

I, at least, have not seen too much of that and, if the chairs try it, 
in my experience the room or the ADs
typically quickly remind them of the correct protocol.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:41:16 -0400

> meetings, as well...

I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace the word "increasingly" with the word "very"). I also think that this is true of other standards groups that I have attended. If you attend a long string of meetings, you can probably miss one, send in a contribution, and people that you know might take it seriously. However, to have impact you need to make a habit of showing up at nearly every meeting (IMHO). 

Ross
(also speaking with no hats on -- just giving my personal opinion).

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:21:22 -0400

> I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace the word "increasingly" with the word "very"). I also think that this is true of other standards groups that I have att…

That's generally been my experience also, both when I was attending IETF regularly and since.  

Part of why this is true may be that working group meetings are pretty nearly useless (especially if, as was the case last time I attended, most of the WG meeting time is devoted toPowerPoint presentations).   Most of the real work gets done in the hallways, restaurants, and bars.   Even if you can work out better ways of letting people remotely participate in the meetings, that doesn't help them contribute to the work that gets done elsewhere.

Keith

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:31:43 -0700

> really excellent but that's one-way - there's far less

The IAD bought new equipment for japan, net netbooks went a long way
towards improving the sound quality over the old imbedded systems kit.

> results on mailing lists.  

As a working group chair with a lot of if not mostly remote
particaptions I went out on my way to make sure that those who could not
attend had their views represented in opsec. That said, having only run
three two hour meetings a year, as I've done that activity, the too many
things going on in the cockpit problem is pronounced. Tracking and
engaging on the remote side while running the meeting is a lot to do
even with to chairs... the webex was a interesting experiment, and It
makes the virtual interim more productive but it's a lot to manage while
you're doing everything else.

> as Chip's.  

> (My answer is probably different; I think

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:01:57 -0700

On 9/7/2010 5:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
>> It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF
>> without being physically present at meetings, as well...
>
> I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you
> replace the word "increasingly" with the word "very").

Face-to-face is quite helpful for forming an effort, since it creates a
connection among the group, and it is quite helpful for resolving specific
problems.  That is, it is good for personal connection and rapid interaction.

For a group with real focus and a strong sense of purpose, face to face is /not/
all that important for general document development and revision, absent
particular points of impasse.

So the 'very' Ross cites has always been true, but in constrained ways.

Useful documents can be developed with /no/ face-to-face interactions.  Useless
documents are often developed with /primarily/ face-to-face interactions.
Neither mode has a guaranteed outcome.

IMO, the tendency to move more towards doing work in f2f meetings seems
primarily to indicate a lack of urgency, process management and/or technical
focus, rather than on an actual need.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT)

> particular points of impasse.

We have running code here in the form of the Sieve WG. Several of the
active participants have, AFAIK, never attended a F2F meeting. This even
includes some specification authors or coauthors.

The key to making this work is that the people who are at the F2F meeting
have to take steps to facilitate remote participation. This includes, but
is not limited to:

(0) Having meeting materials available well in advance, no "winging it" at
    meeting time.
(1) Proper use of microphones.
(2) Serious attention paid to Jabber during meetings.
(3) Timely postings to the mailing list.

In the case of Sieve, we went so far as to provide telepresence for selected
remote participants for "bar-BOF" discussions outside of the regular meetings.
This was especially helpful in coordinating specification work with remote
authors.

> Neither mode has a guaranteed outcome.

Quite true.

> focus, rather than on an actual need.

Also true. It takes real effort to make remote participation work. Most groups
don't bother, and thus fail to reap what they never sowed. And as time marches
on and F2F particpations inevitably becomes more expensive and difficult, the
present approach most groups use is only going to get more problematic, not
less.

				Ned

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:15:12 +0200 (MEST)

> > >> without being physically present at meetings, as well...

A significant amount of IETF meeting participants that have their
expenses sponsored by their employer might need to have this notion
upheld, or they get difficulties getting their f2f participation
approved.  This might be particularly important for those participants
that do not make any presentations on an IETF meeting.

> 
> > Face-to-face is quite helpful for forming an effort, since it
> > creates a connection among the group, and it is quite helpful
> > for resolving specific problems.  That is, it is good for
> > personal connection and rapid interaction.

The effect is similar to team-building events for teams of ones workplace.
Getting to know other team members and talk to them about other things
than some potentially controversial technical issue helps in figuring out
that a different opinion is in fact, a mere technical, rather than a
personal issue when there are competing proposals or differing opinions.

Especially for newcomers, it might significantly improve the level of
the discussion to get to know other WG participants over lunch, dinner,
IETF social or other occasions before getting into technical squabbles
on the mailing list.

> (3) Timely postings to the mailing list.

I have been participating remotely in two WGs (cat/kitten and Kerberos)
remotely for ~10 years and it worked remarkably well thanks to the
efforts of the WG chairs and WG contributors participating the IETF Meeting.

The audiocast seems to work OK for pretty much all IETF WGs, but the
interactive remote participation through jabber depends significantly
on WG chair and other participants attention -- and seems to be not
used and likely ignored by a number of WGs.

In general, I believe that remote participation of IETF WGs entirely
through the WG mailing list is possible, but participating at least
some IETF meetings goes a long way getting to know the IETF and
some folks in personal, which might ease some of the technical
discussions in the long run.

-Martin