Hi John,
At 19:55 30-03-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
Interesting idea. Of course, if the audio fails, we would
essentially have what used to be called a domino effect: if
minutes and everything else depended on the transcribers, the
transcribers were remote, and the audio went out, the WG might
reasonably adjourn to the nearest location dispensing coffee or
stronger beverages.
If the audio fails, you have audio recordings to work from. It's up
to the session chair to assess the situation and figure out what to
do. It is reasonable for the WG to adjourn. It is also reasonable
for the AD to shut down the WG if it's not delivering.
I worry a little about expecting people to read transcripts on
their laptops for three reasons:
(i) Trying to keep track of the laptop screen largely
prevents looking at the slides which, we would like to
hope, actually contain information. It might interfere
with Jabber tracking even more.
Yes.
(ii) It might discourage getting up and standing in
microphone lines, etc., to comment and participate.
The transcription might provide some statistics about mic attendees,
how much time they spend at the mic, whether the comment actually
helps to resolve the issue being discussed.
In a session on Friday, overall, the people who stepped to the mic
line are from North America. There was only one non-English
speaker. Around 83% of the IETF output is from English
speakers. That may fall down to around 60% in the near future. If
we ignore the presentations, the numbers for standing up in
microphone lines do not tally with the trend.
Nothing in what I suggest is going to fix that.
(iii) For a WG Chair (or equivalent) looking into the
audience and seeing who is huddled over their laptops,
presumably reading mail and who is paying attention.
Having a significant number of people huddled over their
laptops reading transcripts fouls up that particular bit
of inference because that group is mentally present in
the WG, while most of the mail-readers are not.
There is a significant number of tourists in a WG session. If a
person is not paying attention, he/she shouldn't be surprised when
the minutes shows that he/she contributed to some decision.
BTW, I forgot to mention that some of the tourists are a bit more
than that. They take notes of what goes on in a session for internal
reporting.
At 01:19 31-03-2012, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
but meeting consensus can have a big influence on mailing list
consensus.)
Yes.
The result of what we are doing here will I think inevitably at some
point change the answer to no. And, after that, you are not having a
WG meeting, just some sort of seminar.
If we exclude WG adoption of drafts, how many decisions are taken (to
be confirmed on the list) in a meeting?
OAUTH 5
MANET 4
TLS 3
KITTEN 2
DHC 2
P2PSIP 2
SIPCORE 2
XRBLOCK 2
WEBSEC 1
ANTITRUST 1
INSIPID 1
KERBEROS 1
ISIS 1
JOSE 0
IPSECME 0
PKIX 0
MILE 0
NEA 0
ABFAB 0
DANE 0
The metrics used do not paint a true picture of the sessions.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
