Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> "John" == John Leslie <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Part of the problem is that we waste huge amounts of our in-person time >>> on presentations rather than conversations. > >> John> +100 !! > >> John> However, I fear that's mostly out-of-scope for this document. > > Well, then we need a requirements requirement process! Hmm... let's try that as a thread... > If we are optimizing our meetings for one-way powerpoint presentations > with questions held to the end, answered only by the presenter, then > that argues for one technical solution. > > If we are optimizing our meetings for multi-party conversations, then > maybe it's going to be a different technical solution. > > Also, the two things do not scale the same way. +10 > My sense is that we want to use the RPS as much for interim virtual > meetings (and "design team" meetings) as for meetings, so in fact, > the multi-party conversation solution is actually the more interesting > one. +1 Additionally, the >2-way conversations during IETF-week meetings is the most productive part of those meetings, IMHO. > ... as you said: > >> John> IMHO, the best tool on the horizon is virtual interims; and that is >> John> where this document can help. >> >> John> But, to tell truth, it's not "participation". Most folks get no >> John> benefit of what you do; and jabber isn't _really_ a part of the >> John> meeting. Often, I find that _nobody_ physically present is paying >> John> any attention to the jabber room, and I don't blame them. > > I'm really lost about that. *I* sure do when I'm present. And who listens to you? (I don't blame them because they have so many other things on their minds that making space for someone they didn't think of as participating and who isn't "paying his way" is asking more than I wish to ask.) >>> d) If the chair/presenter could read the questions directly, when it >>> is a presentation rather than a discussion, then maybe we do not >>> need a MIC and MIC-line, as everyone could use that! > >> John> Are you proposing that _all_ questions must be typed into jabber >> John> (even those from local participants)? > > It's an interesting idea, don't you think? It's a _dreadful_ idea! We _have_ IETF-week meetings because some things just don't happen on mailing-lists. Making IETF-week more like mailing-lists would only mean it doesn't happen during IETF-week either! -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
