[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Possible Interim Meeting, was Re: Policy requirements in Son-Of-IKE



I agree; I have also been frustrated at the last two meetings.
I would to follow up on this
to say that perhaps we need to plan to make more focused
and interactive discussion possible
as well.  The trouble with open mike when a group
gets this large, and has so many issues to cover,
is that it is very hard to follow up on what someone said
four or five or eight comments back. 
This is especially true, of course, when the
amount of time allotted is so brief as at last
week's IETF, but I think it would have been a problem
even if we had had a lot more time. 

If we do have an interim meeting, and if it looks like it will be large,
I wonder if it would be possible to organize things differently, e.g. have
people split into discussion groups to discuss specific topics, and then
to present their results to the group at large, with time for comments.
Or maybe the WG chairs could identify what seem to be the major issues and
schedule
open mike so that specific portions of the open mike time
are set aside to discuss specific issues.
Or maybe somebody has some other ideas/experience for managing discussion
in a group of this size. 

Cathy

Catherine Meadows
Code 5543
Center for High Assurance Computer Systems
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375

phone: +1-202-767-3490
fax: +1-202-404-7942



> > From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@sonicwall.com>
> 
> I meant to send a response to this as well, as I forgot to complain
> after the SLC meeting. To travel all that way to meet face to face, and
> then to not have time to actually discuss things in detail, seems to
> defeat the purpose. Interim meeting or no, I cast a vote for scheduling
> more discussion (open mike?) time at working group meetings. If we need
> 3 slots, then we need 3 slots.
> 
> Scott
> 
> Jan Vilhuber wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > PS: I'm a bit upset that any time was spent on presentations on Thursday
> > > >  morning. We should have spent the high bandwidth time in the small room
> > > >  on discussion about these things.
> > > >
> > > >  I guess I should have read the agenda with more thought and objected to it.
> > > >  I wonder if an official interim meeting in late April would have value.
> > > >
> > 
> > I missed this in the first reading of this mail.
> > 
> > As you know, I fully agree. I don't know the politics around interim
> > meetings, but given that we made absolutely NO forward progress in the
> > last two meetings, I would consider some interim meeting valuable IF
> > we can have a goal to the meeting (which is not just 'give five
> > presentations and go home).
> > 
> > jan
> >  --
> > Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
> > Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847
>