I've seen a tendency for wgchairs to
make agendas = list of drafts in development. A better practice would be
to start the hard questions that need to be discussed (to take advantage
of the face time) and back into background reading from there.
best summary of how to organize an
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:44:41 -0800, Aaron Falk wrote:
I've seen a tendency for wgchairs to
make agendas = list of drafts in development. A better practice would
be to start the hard questions that need to be discussed (to take
advantage of the face time) and back into background reading
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
...
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better off.
meetings in the first place. The jabber scribing has become very
important for remote participants - this time we even had one Area
The IETF
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly. These
functions, IMHO, are too important to leave to the possible
failures/overloads of the
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
instant messaging (e.g. we need you in here right now). And some
people simply have
As for presentations, the fact that they vary in quality can't be
blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.
Brian
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
Summary of Tufte's views in
On Mar 14 2005, at 14:07 Uhr, Keith Moore wrote:
we used to get a lot more work done when we used our meetings
primarily for discussion rather than scheduling presentations for most
or all of the meeting time.
Yes. WG chairs planning WG meetings, take note.
But then, one difference is that a
On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 08:34 AM, Carl Malamud wrote:
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
The NY Times ran an article on PowerPoint and the deterioration of
public speaking a few years ago, before Tufte
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:07:05 -0500
Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
I personally think that it may be appropriate that most people are not
paying attention
much of the time. In some WG, you may only really care about 1 or 2
drafts, and not at all
about the details of the editorial progress of some other draft.
Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial progress of some draft, I
find myself wondering - does _anybody_ here need to be watching this? If
someone has typed in this summary in PPT, couldn't it as easily be posted to
the WG mailing list, or
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:26, Bruce Campbell wrote:
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly.
Power was most assuredly not a problem
From the top of my head, there are at least three kinds of
presentations I see frequently at the IETFs:
a) about 5 slides (or less) of background for the work, some major
points, and maybe what has changed, on the last slide soliciting for
input on certain specific topics,
b)
Melinda Shore wrote:
However, while slides do tend to lead to a presentation-type
meeting format, I think there are other factors substantially
contributing to that, as well.
Yes. Another factor is the ratio of work items to meeting time.
If there are 5-6 or even more items per a two-hour slot
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
instant messaging (e.g. we need you in here right now). And some
people simply
Carsten Bormann wrote:
(The best WG meeting I ever attended was one where Tony Li hammered
out most of the IP-over-firewire details in one session by asking
the attending firewire experts all the right questions in one
sitting. I'm still wowed for life. But you can't do this for
something
16 matches
Mail list logo
