ineffective use of meeting time

[Bound, Jim]

Don't disagree but I want to not loose an important point.

Those discussing detailed technical points for a draft should identify
themselves if they have not read the spec.  This should qualify their
input and not as valid as those who have read the specs.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:24 AM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: ineffective use of meeting time
> 
> 
> > <solution-space>
> > I think we need to consider how to have discussions that are bigger
> > than working groups but smaller than the IETF.
> > </solution-space>
> 
> We already have "areas."   But "areas" are probably too big, and 
> currently don't have any real existence except as a way to group WGs 
> together.   That is, there are no meetings.
> 
> One problem with trying to shorten presentations at meetings may be 
> that meetings actually serve more than one purpose.   In one sense, 
> meetings are where colleagues get together to discuss the related 
> protocols they are working on.   In another sense, meetings exist so 
> that cross-pollination can occur.   That is, my focus tends 
> to be DHCP, 
> but I should go to zeroconf and the various IPv6 meetings to stay on 
> top of what's going on there.   But there's no chance I'm going to be 
> able to read all those drafts.   A presentation helps me to 
> figure out 
> if there are some drafts that I *should* read.
> 
> So maybe it would be helpful to break this out into two problems:
> 
> 1. We need a way for interested parties to discuss protocols on which 
> they are working, and
> 2. We need a way to encourage cross-pollination between groups.
> 
> Possibly these two goals should be addressed in separate meetings.   
> For example, we might have a networking area meeting where 
> people make 
> presentations about protocols they'd like people outside 
> their group to 
> review.   Then in the WG meeting, people would discuss details, and 
> little help would be given to those who aren't up to speed on 
> what the 
> working group is doing.
> 
>