Dave Crocker | 22 Jul 23:01 2014
Picon

Suggestion - unified plenary audience queue

G'day.

In order to give remote participants fair access to speak during group
discussions, the current process has the jabber scribe move to the queue
at various times, which gets in the way of their scribing.  In
interesting plenary discussions, the chair also tries to service the
multiple microphone queues, which can get confusing or unfair (and
usually both.)

In the scheme of IETF operatinal issues, this hassle rates low, but as
an aspect of the goal to integrate local and remote participants, it
could be a useful touchstone.

I propose an experiment for IETF plenaries:

     A single speaker queue, online through editpad and open to anyone
with an IETF login.[*]

The chair reads from the top of the list, downward, calling out the name
of whomever is next.

If you want to speak, add your name to the end; if your access requires
special handling, such as through jabber, note that.  (And type your
comment so it's fully-formed by the time you get to the top of the queue.)

It doesn't matter where you are.   When your name is called, start
speaking.  (If your access is jabber, then yes, it needs a designated
speaker to jump up to the mic.)

This mechanism works for anyone with online access, through any device.
(Continue reading)

Pete Resnick | 22 Jul 21:51 2014

Re: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org

On 7/22/14 3:31 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I think this is pretty close to what I meant.  Chide, correct or amend 
> would not be incorrect either.
>
> If the "moderator" steps in too early, too often, the back lash will 
> put paid to the experiment. So I expect that there will be an element 
> of correction from the formal "facilitators" or silence.

We have, over the years, have had chairs who only step in to working 
group discussions when it's time to chide or correct people. We've had 
other chairs who are very proactive, who guide this discussion by saying 
things like, "It sounds to me like the conclusion of this discussion is 
X. Anyone disagree with that, or are we done?" Which model gets used 
depends on the particular chair and their skill level, the participants 
and their interaction mode, and sometimes even the tone of a particular 
discussion. Sometimes "guidance" will work well, and sometimes 
"remonstration" is the only thing one can do.

I think on the IETF list, this will depend on the abilities of the 
moderator/facilitator/whateverator, and depend on the discussion being 
moderated/facilitated/whateverated.

pr

--

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

Eliot Lear | 22 Jul 21:27 2014
Picon

Re: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org

No hats...

On 7/22/14, 3:21 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:

> First we decide if there's a consensus that there's a problem.

There's a problem.  To the point where it drives people (further) away
from this list.  This list is important to raise last call issues, as
well as other important issues.  Some dialog is perfectly
understandable.  But one recent discussion demonstrated that even the
last call discussion got out of hand.  We need mechanisms for things to
get back in hand.

> Then we decide what approach to take to mitigate the problem. 

I don't think all this mechanism is necessary or appropriate at this
stage, since what we are talking about is people who are meant to call
on people to moderate their own behavior.

Eliot

Ted Lemon | 22 Jul 19:28 2014

Re: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org

On Jul 22, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns <at> comcast.net> wrote:
> We're considering approaches to manage noise on the IETF list.  One possibility discussed by the IESG is
providing moderators to remonstrate with the noise producers prior to action by the sergeant-at-arms. 
The IESG would like to solicit comments on this and also solicit guidance on other possibilities prior to
making any decision

As Spencer said, this is good text.   However, it's worth noting that we /really do/ have a problem here, and we
need to do something about it.   What Pete proposed was /really/ mild: he proposed that when people exhibit
certain behavior patterns, they be asked to step back--to count to ten, as Vint said.   Is that actually an
unreasonable thing to be doing?

I agree with the hall monitor comment--we really don't want to turn this into a new, improved IETF bullying
system.   If that's what this looks like to people who are objecting, we probably ought to try to figure out
why, and whether there's something we can do to mitigate that concern.

Pete Resnick | 22 Jul 19:16 2014

Re: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org

On 7/22/14 1:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Perhaps instead - "We're considering approaches to manage noise on the 
> IETF list. One possibility discussed by the IESG is providing 
> moderators to remonstrate with the noise producers prior to action by 
> the sergeant-at-arms. The IESG would like to solicit comments on this 
> and also solicit guidance on other possibilities prior to making any 
> decision".

I absolutely agree, with the caveat that "remonstrate" is probably a bit 
strong. I'd hope that that the moderator would be there to guide the 
discussion before remonstration is necessary.

pr

--

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

Spencer Dawkins | 22 Jul 19:13 2014
Picon

Re: Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org


On 07/22/2014 01:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> At 12:16 PM 7/22/2014, IETF Chair wrote:
>
>>> This message proposes a problem exists and then without any discussion
>>> announces a decision.
>> I want to clarify what the mail said. It said we are planning to do this and called for feedback. A decision
will be made after discussion.
>>
>> Jari
>
> Hi Jari  -
>
> "Planning to do this" implies "we've already decided and it will go forward unless something changes.
>
> Perhaps instead - "We're considering approaches to manage noise on the IETF list.  One possibility
discussed by the IESG is providing moderators to remonstrate with the noise producers prior to action by
the sergeant-at-arms.  The IESG would like to solicit comments on this and also solicit guidance on other
possibilities prior to making any decision".

Mike,

This is what I thought we were doing. Thanks for sending text.

Spencer, speaking as 1/16th of the IESG

IETF Chair | 22 Jul 16:24 2014
Picon

Moderation on ietf <at> ietf.org

The ietf <at> ietf.org list is very active. It hosts varied discussions ranging from last calls to IETF
organisation matters to any Internet technology-related topics that come up. We all have seen how much
discussion there is, and occasionally, discussions that become unproductive or repetitive. Part of the
root cause of this is that unlike most IETF lists, there is no working group chair overseeing and driving discussions.

The IESG has discussed this and plans to add moderators to manage the list discussion. The moderators will
track and guide discussions and remind people when they get outside of the lines. Please respect the
feedback from the moderators when they say, for instance, that an issue has been already previously
discussed. 

The moderation system will not affect other mailing list management methods that are used on this list or in
the IETF in general.

If you have feedback on this plan, please let us know.

Jari Arkko for the IESG

Jari Arkko | 22 Jul 15:38 2014
Picon

volunteers for taking notes

It would be good to have a couple of people to take notes during the admin plenary. Anyone who would be willing
to do this?

Jari

IETF Chair | 21 Jul 19:43 2014
Picon

IPROC team and IANA

While talking to several people this week, I noticed that not everyone is aware of a small team that we have
for tracking and improving IANA operations from an IETF perspective. I just wanted to send a pointer to the
team’s page:

  http://www.ietf.org/iana/iproc.html

The team’s primary responsibility is to help IAB and IAOC in their oversight role, by tracking monthly
operational statistics and events. One of the main tasks is to provide assistance to update the yearly
service level agreement between IETF and ICANN. For instance, for this year we have added a requirement
for a public audit, which when completed, will provide visibility to ensure that correct policies were
followed when allocations have been made.

The team is chaired by IAB chair (Russ Housley) and has members from the IAB, IAOC, IESG, the IAB IANA
program, and the ICANN IANA department.

Ongoing measurements of IANA operations can be accessed from http://www.iana.org/about/performance/ietf-statistics/

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

Bobboyi | 20 Jul 23:29 2014
Picon

(unknown)



Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Jack Moffitt | 19 Jul 06:04 2014

royalty free video codec discussion at IETF 90 - Manitoba room, Tues 1130-1250

The Daala team would like to invite anyone interested in royalty free video
codecs to join us in the Manitoba Room (on the Main Mezzanine Level) on Tuesday
from 1130 to 1250.

We've invited other video coding teams and hopefully we'll have a
fair number of the interested parties gathered to discuss our efforts and plan
next steps.

You can find a draft agenda for the meeting here:
https://daala.etherpad.mozilla.org/video-codec-ietf90

Please join us if you would like to help or just want to see what progress has
been made so far.

Jack Moffitt
Daala Project Manager, Mozilla


Gmane