This discussion has a periodicy about 6 months. The premise is asinine, we can't go back to the early to mid 90s.
Joel's widget number 2 On Oct 30, 2010, at 7:34, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 2010, at 4:01 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > >>> The second biggest thing that IETF could do to raise productivity in >>> meetings is to ban Internet use in meetings except for the purpose of >>> remote participation. >> >> Harder to do & not clearly an improvement: it clear out meeting rooms a bit, >> but on the other hand people who (for example) just read email in meetings >> aren't really harming productivity too much. > > I'm not sure about that. If you're in a room with ten people who are > participating in a discussion, it's easy to know whether those ten have > achieved consensus among themselves. Also, chances are good that each of > those ten people has had a chance to ask questions, voice objections, or > otherwise make contributions to the discussion. > > But if you're in a room with a hundred people (mostly staring at laptops) and > only ten active participants, it's much harder to know whether there is > consensus in the room. And because there are so many people not obviously > doing anything, those who have something to say are more likely to feel > inhibited. After all, most people are saying nothing (and not paying much > attention), and we humans (okay, most of us) tend to take cues for what is > socially acceptable by watching the behavior of those around us. > > In the early-to-mid 1990s, IETF WG meetings used to be good places to > actually discuss concerns about a document, and hash out potential solutions. > I remember several occasions.when a WG would schedule two meeting sessions > in a week, one on Monday and another on late Wednesday or Thursday. The > Monday session would discuss the document(s) on the table, identify problems, > suggest solutions. Then a couple of WG participants and the authors would > sit up late one night and revise the document in time for review at the > second meeting (or at least, to be able to report to the second meeting what > changes they had made, and get feedback on those). I think it led to much > faster convergence than what we usually see now. And often the face-to-face > review/revise/review sessions resulted in getting the document in a state > where there were only a few nits remaining. I don't think this would work > the way we have meetings now, because there's nowhere nearly enough time for > discussion . > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
