Since you asked for opinions... > * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do > so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or > occasional schedule?
Yes, I think we should continue with the two-plenary model for at least a couple more IETF meetings. If we find that the discussion at both plenaries is short enough such that they could have been done together without making a single plenary too long, we can switch back. Besides the additional time for discussion, having separate plenaries did seem (to me) to add focus. An alternative might be to decide for each IETF meeting based on whether there are any "hot topics" to be focused on and discussed at either plenary. When there are, have two plenaries. When there are not, have one. The problem I see with this is that the decision probably has to be made pretty far in advance of the meeting. (Maybe we could always plan for two and then make a last week decision as to whether or not to actually use the second plenary time slot.) > * If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on > Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more > radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at > this point). How radical is radical? I always plan to be at the IETF meeting for the whole week so I will attend wherever they end up. Because I am usually exhausted by the end of the week, I would prefer Tuesday over Thursday. (Sunday night might also be a good time for architectural discussion since everyone is fresh and will be "loosened up" after the reception.) The two options I would definitely NOT want to see are any time on Friday or any time that conflicts with working group meetings. > * Do you have major architectural themes that should be > addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? I would like hear more about the issues related to the internationalization of the DNS and issues related to routing table growth. There have been some presentations on these topics in the past but I would like to see some architectural discussion about where these issues stand now. > * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it > better to let people explain their views at whatever length that > takes? Microphone time should definitely be controlled. Far too many people feel compelled to spend too much time talking without adding new content to the discussion. (This problem is worse in some working group meetings. I think some people just like to hear the sound of their own voices.) And, I like (what I perceive to be) the existing system. Time is not limited when a person really is adding comment or is getting a new topic of discussion going. Time starts being limited when a discussion has gone on for awhile and no new content is being added and/or it starts getting very late into the evening. (If any change is made, I would like to see more limits, not less.) *** Related to the topic of plenary time... Since the main purpose of the plenary sessions is the open discussion, I would like to see less time spent on presentations that are not intended to directly relate to an anticipated discussion at the plenary. Time spent on the "standard" reports is already well managed. And, it seems to me, based on my experience at the last two IETF meetings, that steps are already being taken to cut down on the time spent on the other presentations. I would like to see this trend continue. (For myself, I would be happy if we jumped right into discussion after just some brief introductory remarks. But, I am not actually advocating going that far since sometimes the presentations are very educational.) John
