RE: Plenary Scheduling

[Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com]

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for sending this proposed agenda.  I have some thoughts about
it that probably sound pretty negative, but they aren't targeted at
your proposal, per se, more at the way we use plenary time in general.

I have some concerns that we are spending too much time in plenary
sessions, and that we are not using that time especially well.  Unless
we can improve the value of the plenary time, I believe that an 
additional meeting slot would be more valuable.

>   - Introduction - Harald
> 
> 
> aim for 2 x 40 minute presentation slots with time for 30 
> minute comments. The presentations could be either a single presentation 
> or a number of presentations on a single theme
> 
> My guess is that we'd be aiming for presnetations that tie in some
> aspects of current deployment with research activity, but 
> they could also be informative, or kite flying.

What is the _goal_ of this evening?  Or are there multiple goals?
Possibilities include:  community education, opportunity to reward
contributors/hosts, community building, entertainment...  ??

For example, while I found the talk by Bruce Schneier that was 
held a couple of meetings ago to be fairly interesting, I didn't
find it valuable enough to be worth the plenary time...  Perhaps
others thought otherwise?  

> Thursday PM - Joint IESG / IAB Open Meeting 
>    - Current Status overviews  - 1 Hour
> 
>          - IETF Chair       15 Minutes
>             (include meeting statistics)
> 
>          - IAB Chair        10 Minutes
> 
>          - IRTF Chair       10 Minutes
> 
>          - IETF Secretariat 10 Minutes
> 
>          - RFC Editor       10 Minutes
> 
>          - IANA             10 Minutes
> 
>          Optional slots open for ISOC and ICANN

Why do we have all of these talks?  They are repetitive, usually
b-o-r-i-n-g, and I'm not sure what value they offer to the community.
Perhaps we could move each of these sections to once per year, give
them ~15 minutes, and only ask them to give a talk if they have
specific issues to raise that would benefit from discussion by 
the community, etc?  Most of what is presented in these sections 
on a regular basis could be better communicated via e-mail.

I'd rather see Harald give a 10 minute intro (including meeting
statistics, I guess) and move on to whatever the real meat of
the evening is... 

>    - Other items of IESG and IAB business - 1 Hour
> 
>      (possible items for the November meeting, to be conducted with
>       opportunity for open comment)
> 
>      - Report from IAB Advisory Committee
> 
>      - Report on ICANN response to DNS wildcard issues
> 
>      - IETF Finances
> 
>      - Current IESG issues?

I think that it would be a challenge to pack this all into one hour,
especially with any time for comments/questions.
 
>           In the past we've had Harald's finance 
> presentation, the problem
>           presentation, etc. I.e. items of IESG and / or IAB 
> business that
>           are considered to be appropriate to present to the 
> IETF in plenary
>           as part of this joint open meeting.
> 
>    - Opportunity for plenary comment (open mic) - notionally 
> up to 1 Hour

I think that it is a mistake to cut this time short.  One hour
is not long enough for both IAB and IESG open mics, is it?  

Personally, I'd prefer to see one plenary meeting with ~1-1/2
hours for presentation/discussion and ~1-1/2 hours for open
mic...  Perhaps it would run over a bit, as usual.

I know that we used to do it this way, and that we moved to 
two meetings because we found ourselves short of time...  I
have to admit that I didn't understand that at the time, because
I didn't think that the meetings were well-enough prioritized
to warrant doubling their length.  So, maybe I was missing
something?

Margaret