Subject: Re: Plenaries at IETF 53

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:27:54 -0500

proposal:
 - each ietf: have the usual reports (rfc editor,...) on wednesday evening
 - alternating IAB and IESG plenaries on wednesday (after reports) at each 
IETF:
   ie. minneapolis: IAB plenary on wednesday (after reports)
       yokohama: IESG plenary on wednesday (after reports)
       next: IAB
       ...
 - have open mike and allocate enough time for discussions
- keep thrusday evening free.

Marc.

-- mercredi, janvier 16, 2002 16:42:45 -0500 John Klensin 
<[email-masked]> wrote/a écrit:

> IETF Community,
>
> During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that
> the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more
> time for discussion of general architectural issues in the
> former.  We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in
> its usual slot on Wednesday night and the IAB one on Thursday
> evening.  The latter was well-attended and our perception was
> that at least some of the discussion was helpful.  At the same
> time, several members of the community told us that they would
> have liked to participate, but could not be present Thursday
> evening.  We also believe that these discussions are useful to
> the extent that we can focus on specific topics and discourage
> speechmaking that takes up extended periods of time.
>
> So, we have several questions and request comments and
> discussion either to the IETF list ([email-masked]) or the IAB
> one ([email-masked]):
>
> * Should we continue with the two-plenary model?  Should we do
> so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or
> occasional schedule?
>
> * If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on
> Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more
> radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at
> this point).
>
> * Do you have major architectural themes that should be
> addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?
>
> * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it
> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that
> takes?
>
> thanks,
>
>      john
>      (for the IAB)

------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viagénie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
  IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------

---

From: Rodney Thayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:43:11 -0800

At 04:42 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, John Klensin wrote:

>one ([email-masked])...

I think two plenary's is a good idea.

If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday
night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help.
also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg meetings
(I know, that's off topic...)

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:40:48 +0100

>night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help.

I'd be curious to know what would define "using Friday seriously". We do 
usually put meetings on Friday which also have a meeting earlier in the 
week, meaning that if they get their job done earlier they can go home, but 
it's not like we fail to schedule meetings there. Do you mean "the working 
groups assume that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to 
accomplish anything on Friday"?

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:25:04 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, John Klensin wrote:
[snip]
> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that

Definitely.  How aggressively is another question (mainly a function of
people's interest in the subject and remaining time, I think); it's all
too easy to start endless debates (over and over again) that take the time
from something more important.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:53:19 -0600

> also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg meetings

I think devoting Thursday night to a plenary is one factor that helps
to undermine Friday's status as a "real" working day.

In most cases, Tuesday noght could have been used for a plenary with
no adverse impact to the IETF at large.

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:18:19 -0500 (EST)

> radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at

I like the idea of keeping to the two-plenary schedule at every IETF.

> * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it

Yes!

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:43:20 -0500

>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Fred> At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote:
    >> If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night
    >> more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help.

    Fred> I'd be curious to know what would define "using Friday
    Fred> seriously". We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a
    Fred> meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job
    Fred> done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to
    Fred> schedule meetings there. Do you mean "the working groups assume
    Fred> that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to
    Fred> accomplish anything on Friday"?

  Precisely. 
  There is a strong urge to get the meeting rescheduled from Friday to an
earlier day, and if that isn't possible, to compress the earlier meetings.
  Further, the desire to stay out of Friday causes scheduling conflicts
earlier in the week for many that might not otherwise occur.

  Leaving early means leaving on Thursday afternoon/evening. 
  I personally have never been able to reschedule a flight from late Friday
to early Friday - the flights are full. 

  I personally think that it would be nice to have a sign-up page for each
WG session in advance. This would help scheduling and room allocations.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:59:45 -0500

>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Crawford <[email-masked]> writes:
    Matt> I think devoting Thursday night to a plenary is one factor that
    Matt> helps to undermine Friday's status as a "real" working day.

    Matt> In most cases, Tuesday noght could have been used for a plenary
    Matt> with no adverse impact to the IETF at large.

  In particular, the only really important thing for a social event is that
there be food and beverage. We provide all of the rest. 

  As such, combining the plenary with a reception-like thing beforehand would
work just fine for me. There may be some logistical problems (Sunday's
reception usually occurs in the same room as the plenary does).

---

From: Rodney Thayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:42:33 -0800

A couple of things happen with Friday meetings.

One is, there aren't enough of them.  It makes it hard to justify
staying the extra day.

The other thing is, recently, they've had a habit of scheduling
multiple common interest meetings on top of each other, like
PKIX and PGP, or two security meetings, or something like that, and
yet leaving Friday sparsley populated.  I'd rather stay through
Friday than miss half of what I went to attend.  My point here is
that it seems to me we could use Friday's time better, if we
have scheduling issues.

At 10:40 AM 1/17/2002 +0100, Fred Baker wrote:
>week, meaning that if they get their job done earlier they can go home, 
>but it's not like we fail to schedule meetings there. Do you mean "the 
>working groups assume that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually 
>plan to accomplish anything on Friday"?

---

From: John Border <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:43:24 -0500

Since you asked for opinions...
 
> so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or

Yes, I think we should continue with the two-plenary model for at least a
couple more IETF meetings.  If we find that the discussion at both plenaries
is short enough such that they could have been done together without making a
single plenary too long, we can switch back.  Besides the additional time for
discussion, having separate plenaries did seem (to me) to add focus.

An alternative might be to decide for each IETF meeting based on whether there
are any "hot topics" to be focused on and discussed at either plenary.  When
there are, have two plenaries.  When there are not, have one.  The problem I
see with this is that the decision probably has to be made pretty far in
advance of the meeting.  (Maybe we could always plan for two and then make a
last week decision as to whether or not to actually use the second plenary
time slot.) 

> radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at

How radical is radical?  I always plan to be at the IETF meeting for the whole
week so I will attend wherever they end up.  Because I am usually exhausted by
the end of the week, I would prefer Tuesday over Thursday.  (Sunday night
might also be a good time for architectural discussion since everyone is fresh
and will be "loosened up" after the reception.)  The two options I would
definitely NOT want to see are any time on Friday or any time that conflicts
with working group meetings.

> addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?

I would like hear more about the issues related to the internationalization of
the DNS and issues related to routing table growth.  There have been some
presentations on these topics in the past but I would like to see some
architectural discussion about where these issues stand now.

> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that

Microphone time should definitely be controlled.  Far too many people feel
compelled to spend too much time talking without adding new content to the
discussion.  (This problem is worse in some working group meetings.  I think
some people just like to hear the sound of their own voices.)  And, I like
(what I perceive to be) the existing system.  Time is not limited when a
person really is adding comment or is getting a new topic of discussion
going.  Time starts being limited when a discussion has gone on for awhile and
no new content is being added and/or it starts getting very late into the
evening.  (If any change is made, I would like to see more limits, not less.)

***

Related to the topic of plenary time...  Since the main purpose of the plenary
sessions is the open discussion, I would like to see less time spent on
presentations that are not intended to directly relate to an anticipated
discussion at the plenary.  Time spent on the "standard" reports is already
well managed.  And, it seems to me, based on my experience at the last two
IETF meetings, that steps are already being taken to cut down on the time
spent on the other presentations.  I would like to see this trend continue. 
(For myself, I would be happy if we jumped right into discussion after just
some brief introductory remarks.  But, I am not actually advocating going that
far since sometimes the presentations are very educational.)

John

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:26:54 -0500

> so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or

Please continue.  Do so at every IETF modulo demand.

> radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at

It depends why people couldn't come on Thursday night.  For the great
majority: now they know better.  Keep it the way it is now, and stay
consistent.

> addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?

(See later mail)

> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that

Some.  Keep a balance.  It depends on the substance etc., as usual.

..Scott

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:27:49 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Rodney" == Rodney Thayer <[email-masked]> writes:
    Rodney> I think two plenary's is a good idea.

    Rodney> If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday
    Rodney> night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would
    Rodney> help.  also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg
    Rodney> meetings (I know, that's off topic...)

  I concur with both thoughts.

  Frequently for me I get triple booked for at least one session on Monday,
and do nothing for at least one other day. 

  I would remove the second plenary only if it were going to result in there
being fewer tracks of meetings for the rest of the week. Use Friday morning
as well.

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:08:14 -0800

> so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or

Yes, but move the Social to Sunday after the Reception so the IAB slot
can be done Tuesday.

> radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at

(see above)

> addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?

The conflict between end-to-end data integrity and middle-boxes that
insist on rewriting content.

> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that

While it shouldn't be necessary if people would make their points
succinctly, if the mic time is not controlled some people will just get
frustrated and leave without their opinions being heard.

Tony

---

From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:37:32 -0500

John Klensin wrote:

> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that

One simple scheduling algorithm would be to have two microphone queues:
one for those speaking for the first time and one for those speaking for
the second (and third, etc.) time. The second queue is called upon only
if there's nobody waiting at the first queue. This might give everyone a
fair shot and avoids the "I'm done with my sermon, let's line up at the
end of the queue again" syndrome we saw in SLC.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:14:24 -0800

Squeezing time out of turnip...

Folks,

There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the 
Sunday reception.  I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards 
(after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.

         But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary
         immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception?

Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include 
the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues.  (Having the IESG 
later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that 
might have cropped up.)

d/
----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:41 -0500

> (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.

Geeks on booze is actually OK if you're socializing - you get the most
AMAZING war stories that way (particularly the ones you'd never get the
geek to admit to if they were sober ;)

But yeah - definitely not a state condusive to actual work.. ;)

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:01:29 -0500 (EST)

> later in the week is useful since it can reflect operational issues that 

The only problem I see with that is psychological - with such a hard week
of work ahead, I kind of like knowing that I can unlax on Sunday (after
the IEPG.)  To me, a Sunday plenary would make the week feel too packed.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:22:49 -0500

--On Friday, 18 January, 2002 07:14 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting
> after the Sunday reception.  I'm inclined to think that trying
> to have it afterwards (after socializing and alcohol) is
> problematic.
> 
> Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it
> could include the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic'
> issues.  (Having the IESG later in the week is useful since it
> can reflect operational issues that might have cropped up.)

Interesting and an idea that I don't think had come up.  The
(only) problem is that it would probably force the IAB into a
Sunday afternoon, or, more likely (given conflicts with IEPG,
IESG meetings, etc), a Saturday, business meeting.   Based on
some internal discussions, the level of within-IAB enthusiasm
for starting meetings on Saturday or Sunday morning is quite
low.  Given that we tend to assume that IAB members are at least
somewhat obligated to meet when the IAB decides to meet, it
might be interesting were you, as a Nomcom member, to poll
potential IAB candidates as to whether a regular requirement for
such meetings would have any impact on their willingness to
serve.

On the other hand, if such an early plenary contained the
sponsor greetings, technical presentations, and routine reports
(IANA, RFC Editor, possibly IRTF), one might be able to do IAB
and IESG on a single night later in the week.  It would be a
different split that would take us back a bit to the content of
the former Monday-morning plenaries and would require a fair
amount of community discipline to get through everything, but it
might have some appeal.

But...  If I recall, a main reason we stopped those Monday
morning plenaries was that many hotels couldn't handle taking
down a room that was set up for a plenary and break it into
multiple meeting room spaces quickly enough for us to move into
morning WG sessions.  For at least some hotels, I can imagine
much the same problem in trying to shift from a plenary into the
reception.  So, even if we wanted to do this, it might not
always be possible, at least without (further) overconstraining
the choice of meeting places.

    john

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:28:32 -0800

AHA!  A modification of my prior suggestion that the "sponsor 
greetings, technical presentations, and routine reports (IANA, RFC 
Editor, possibly IRTF)" might should simply be presented via the WEB, 
I here suggest an interesting addendum:

At the Registration, reception. do a presentation of these reports in 
one corner of the Reception/Registration hall, and record it on DVD 
so that it can be repeated endlessly during the Reception, in one 
corner of the room, or maybe in a separate nearby room.  And also 
post it on a web page for non-attending IETF folk.

These reports should always be made available the net in any case, 
and this suggestion collapses all the effort into one compact 
production session, with an endless loop playback for those who were 
not able to be present at the recording session, or not able to 
attend the meeting...;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  I realize that some folk in the IETF will reject anything
      that I suggest, so just pretend it was suggested by some
      anonymous fellow whose name you have forgotten;-)...

At 16:22 -0500 19/01/02, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 18 January, 2002 07:14 -0800 Dave Crocker

     john

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:05:33 -0800 (PST)

> (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.

Yes, but (as others have suggested) moving the social to Sunday night
would not have that problem.  Or just eliminate it.

My perferred schedule modification:

    Sun:  Reception + social
    Mon:  Evening sessions
    Tue:  Plenary
    Wed:  Plenary
    Thu:  Fine dinner after a hard week

							-- Steve