I agree with Michael and SM, the importance is what is gained from the
face to face (F2F) meeting, if presentation is needed then do it. As I
am usually remote participant I see that Chairs are different in
handling the meetings, and there may be many reasons I don't know
about, however, it is the chair that should guide for the best gain
for the participants in the room and whom are remotely. Piriority of
presentations or/and specific issues that need to be solved, to
encourage progress of the WG in its active works and future work.
Keith is right, we should not spend time much on presenting drafts (
5minutes MAX, inputs from room is more important, which should
encourage inputs on mail-list), info is already there in IETF, but
slides are valuable for showing performance-results, graphs, plans,
scenarios for readers/commenters. We have a large time of discussion
available if we continue participate on lists as well, which should be
encouraged.
IMHO, F2F meetings in IETF sometimes lack inputs from inplementors or
users in industry/market which we want to hear; what does these
companies/end-users think about the I-D or WG performance/direction?
The interaction/feedbacks between IETF and companies/community using a
standard or future standard, is the main purpose I think from F2F
meeting. Our IETF I-Ds don't go much into details of applicability
(i.e. they try to make their work general, which may not be real),
which is good to show scenarios/case-studies by slides and
presentations.
AB
On 2/11/13, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com> writes:
Keith> Can we *please* discourage the habit of treating IETF WG
Keith> meetings as one series of PowerPoint presentations after
Keith> another? This makes the meetings much less productive.
Keith> The notion that there are supposed to be slides for each
Keith> presentation, is IMO, a huge error.
It's not the slides that are the problem.
It's the "presentation" itself.
If we could, I would organize the rooms in circular style, but it doesn't
scale to several hundred people.
(If there are slides, we need to make sure that they are received early,
in a vendor-neutral archival happy format, and can be distributed in
advance.)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
On 2/6/13, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote:
> Hi Abdussalam,
> At 18:14 05-02-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>In the previous ietf meeting in July, I have submitted an I-D in one
>>WG but had no chance to present my participation remotely, as you
>>mention in 2.5. I would like the solution and that I will be able to
>>present remotely. I asked the WG if someone can present for me but
>>only WG darfts are done the way mentioned in 2.5,
>>
>>Please amend the [1] to include that there is difference process in
>>IETF participation remotely for WG I-Ds and Individual I-Ds,
>
> I read a review written by Allison Mankin [1]. I doubt that anyone
> can get a review of that quality in an IETF meeting.
>
> It was mentioned previously on this mailing list that meetings were
> about discussing issues and not about presenting I-Ds. If I have a
> chance to present my I-D either in person or remotely, what's do the
> people in the room gain from it?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76903.html
>
>
