Subject: Re: Remote Participation Services

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 03:14:47 +0100

Dear IETF Chair,

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,

If I misundertood or if there is a solution that I don't know about
please advise,

AB
++
Please see the attached report on the current status of remote
participation in the IETF meeting.  Please notice at the end a call
for potential experiments to explore ways that we can improve remote
participation.

Russ Housley
IETF Chair

Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77020.html

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 03:16:25 +0100

> IETF participation remotely for WG I-Ds and Individual I-Ds,

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77020.html

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:09:18 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
>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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:32:39 +0100

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