meeting time

[Dave Crocker]

John,

To pursue a single issue that is popular:

Wednesday, December 11, 2002, 4:48:29 AM, you wrote:
John> (i) Stretching out or rearranging the meeting schedules so that
John> WGs get considerably more face time is not "clueful people do
John> more work".  It is a suggestion about changing the dynamics so
John> that people can work less frantically and more effectively
John> (probably allowing more cycles for leadership development too).


We have had the current model for brief meeting times for essentially all of
the time the modern IETF has been active, roughly 13 years. It has always
been painful, but we seem to have been more effective in the past than we
are now.

Is it that the current meeting time model has become less effective or that
some other part of the process has become less effective?

For example, perhaps we had more of a model in with design teams doing most
of the work, but with the the working group gathered round to provide
feedback and guidance, and not more? Perhaps now we have more a a
design-by-committee phenomenon. Or perhaps now we have more participants
nit-picking? Or perhaps we have less of a sense of urgency in the working
groups? Or perhaps...?

Yes, these things are complicated and multi-factored. I'm asking about the
meeting time issue, specifically, because a) the constraint has always been
irritating, b) quite a few folks seem to be focusing on it, now, as if
making a change will have a strategic impact, and c) I really am not at all
clear why it is more of a problem now than it was in the past and,
therefore, am unclear why changing it would make things significantly
better.


John> And considerably longer slots would also facilitate more
John> discussion and brainstorming on a more relaxed schedule, rather
John> than requiring unpleasant and heavy-handed techniques to keep
John> things on schedule and not drifting from over-full agendas due
John> to short slots.   I'm still unconvinced that the idea is a good
John> one on balance, but that is another matter.

Clearly the current meeting time model is awful for brainstorming.  We rely
on brainstorming to be outside of meeting time.  That has worked well in the
past; why not now?

Let me toss out a idea I find highly counter-intuitive. It was prompted by
participation in some ITU working group activities:

     Relying on major work to be done in face to face meetings actually
     produces results that are *less* stable and often are *less* viable.
     They are not as well understood and not as well reviewed. And community
     buy-in is actually reduced.

Here's the thinking behind the idea:

1. No matter how relaxed a meeting schedule, it is still an isolated moment
in time, attended by a very, very small percentage of the affected
community. So it never is really relaxed and the narrow participation limits
the amount of balancing perspectives.

2. Doing the major work in a meeting means that major work must wait for the
next meeting. That creates pressure *against* making serious changes.
Spontaneous, clever ideas at a meeting get initial enthusiasm, but later,
sober, review away from the meeting does not carry equal leverage.

By contrast, remaining focused on the mailing list for major work means that
things are done more incrementally and the work is spread out over time. The
meeting time serves two major purposes: 1) milestone pressure, by way of
getting people to find resolution -- or at least to make progress -- during
the time leading up to the meeting, and b) face to face time for focused
discussion about focused issues, i.e., discussing only issues that can be
discussed efficiently. The barroom meetings also prove to be extremely
fruitful idea generators.

Thoughts?

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850