Re: San Diego Agenda issues

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Vishal,

> Thanks for initiating this discussion.

Well, I regret it!

> I think this is an important topic that the WG as a whole
> should probably devote some CPU cycles to, and it would
> be good to get more views.

If we devoted the same number of cycles to reviewing and progressing the WG work, we would
not need to discuss the agenda.

> To get things started, I am giving some comments and
> suggestions below, and in the next email.

We are all indebted, I'm sure.

> > After Seoul we were told in the strongest terms by WG
> > participants and by the ADs that we MUST facilitate
> > discussion at the face-to-face meeting. Thirty five-
> > minute slots may fill the time, but will achieve nothing.
>
> I looked at the Seoul meeting minutes, and do not see any
> lack of discussion on the drafts _that did make it_ to the
> agenda and that were discussed there.
> (People may have had opinions about whether everything
> on the agenda should have been there in the first place, but
> whatever was there seemed to be adequately discussed.)
>
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2004/msg00336.html
>
> Quite to the contrary, the meeting minutes seem to suggest
> that even 5-minute slots, if utilized correctly, provide plenty
> of time for discussion of substantive issues.

So:
- did you track how many slots went over time?
- did you spot that the meeting overran?
- did you notice that two items were dropped from the end?
- did you notice how often the queue at the mic was cut off
   after just a couple of people?
- can you count the number of times the minutes ask that
  "discussions be carried on on the list"

> So, can the participants and AD's who thought there was a
> problem _with the extent of discussion_ at the Seoul WG meeting
> share their thoughts with the WG?

They are, of course, welcome to.
It is enough, however, that they have told the chairs.

> > Of course, the chairs are only your humble servants, and if it is
> > the will of the WG to
> > change the agenda that is fine with us so long as:
> > - it fits within the priorities and milestones in the charter
> > - it conforms to the requirements passed to us by the ADs
> > - we do not end up with tiny slots and no discussion on any draft
>
> I have some specific suggestions on how to improve the
> current agenda; please see following email.
>
> Also, I think several people on the ML have given their inputs
> in the recent past, but I don't recall seeing any response to those
> notes.

Remind me.

> > It may be of interest that to you to know that the ADs issued
> > some guiding principles:
> > - don't discuss any 00 draft that was only published a short time
> >   before the meeting
> > - don't discuss any draft that has not had discussion on the list
> > - only discuss drafts where there are open issues
> > - build the foundations first
> > - prioritise charter work above other work
> > - prioritise meeting the milestones above other charter work
>
> Thanks for providing these. It would be good for the AD's to also
> provide these guiding principles on the ML, so the WG is aware of
> them, as an when they are laid out.

The WG is now aware of them and they are laid out.
Why would you want the AD to waste his time cutting and pasting?
Or are you saying something else?

Adrian