What we do in lemonade is both.
We schedule two 2-hour meetings. The first is for a review of what work
is going on, what issues we are facing, and broad approaches to solving
them. The second is a high-bandwidth working group session, much like
the dreaded interim.
Note that we have also had
--On Monday, 27 March, 2006 09:31 -0500 Edward Lewis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the
> mass gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review.
Ok, we disagree about the believe that cross-area review is the
only reason for holding
At 15:00 -0500 3/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:
Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous
feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said
(roughly, although I don't recall "don't participate") those
words early in the session. Whether that feeling is correct
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
"decisions" taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise,
--On Saturday, 25 March, 2006 11:57 -0500 Edward Lewis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and
>> wastes the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about
>> what other WGs and BOFs are up t
I agree that having presentations which review all the detailed
context is not helpful. One slide reminding folks of context can be
very helpful even for folks who have been reading and following all the drafts.
At the same time, I have always found it very helpful that different
working grou
At 9:56 -0800 3/25/06, Andy Bierman wrote:
Edward Lewis wrote:
Temper, not "remove." Taking a few moments to set the problem up for the
uninitiated and then assuming they have the protocol engineering smarts is
all I'm asking.
The purpose is not to explain the entire draft to tourists
with
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes
the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other
WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.
I agree with this, but find that (in som
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These a
them.
Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should
also be used for interim wg meetings of course.
Stig
Regards
Marshall
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From:Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:03/24/200
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes
the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other
WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.
I agree with this, but find that (in some instances) that mee
ndividual wg whether they want to make use of them.
Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should
also be used for interim wg meetings of course.
Stig
Regards
Marshall
- original message -
Subject: Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From:Stig Venaas
s
> Marshall
>
>
>
>> - original message -
>> Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
>> From:Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm
>>
>> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>>> From: Tim Cho
Marshall
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't
a
Stig Venaas wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is m
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them
for more dynamic discussions.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Hello;
On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote:
I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation
generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage
of starting off my internet expe
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote:
> I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation
> generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage
> of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm
> generally use
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >
> > You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
> >
> > VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
>
> Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:10:47PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient
> > than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to
> > discus
On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient
> than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to
> discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive
> discus
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
>> with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
>>
>> What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
>> cutoff, is maybe look a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
>
> VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim
meeting you need to determine which sy
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
> with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
>
> What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
> cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim
> mee
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
> Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
> quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
> is some amount of precedence for th
Keith Moore wrote:
sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber)
more effective than actually attending the meeting. I sometimes am
surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see
what is relevant. I also think it might be less distracting to a
On Fri Mar 24 13:03:11 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and
jabber) more effective than actually attending the meeting. I
sometimes am surprised to find that the extra distance makes it
easier for me to see what is relevant. I also think it m
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These are busy people who can't
afford to block out an entire week because they don't
know when or wher
29 matches
Mail list logo
