Re: Slightly updated announcement for interim meeting

Personal comments (i.e. not responding as co-chair) below...

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 24-mei-04, at 15:17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> The room will hold about 100 people; at the moment we do not plan
>> on requiring formal advance registration. The informal count of
>> attendees was about 26 as of May 24.
> 
> 
>> 3. Review "Things to think about" draft (Eliot Lear, 45 min.)
>> 4. Review threats draft(s) if updated (leader(s) TBD, 45 min.)
>> 5. Review + discuss future Architecture draft (Geoff Huston
>>    by phone, co-chairs, 2 hours)
>> 6. Open discussion on the impact of various categories of solutions
>>    (co-chairs, 1 hour)
> 
> 
> I would like to repeat my suggestion that the things to think about and 
> threats stuff be moved to the end of the meeting, as going in such 
> detail before even discussing the architecture is likely to waste time 
> on details that will turn out to be moot later.

My view is that these are "business as usual" items that can be done fairly
quickly, but there is a high chance they would be pushed off the agenda
if left to the end. But I certainly agree that they will both need to
be updated as a result of the architecture discussion.

> 
> Also, I was wondering if it were possible to allow those who are so 
> inclined to make a sort of "opening statement" or have something similar 
> to what the IAB did a few IETF meetings ago. I think we can assume that 
> people who take the time to attend this interim meeting and have a point 
> to make, will make sure they get to make this point, so even though this 
> would technically eat up a lot of time (even at 5 minutes a pop, if many 
> people want to do this), in reality it wouldn't make a big difference. I 
> think this would help focus on the important issues and avoid the common 
> syndrome where during the discussions every speaker brings up something 
> different from the previous one.

This is an approach to starting the discussion of the architecture. We do
need some structure in that discussion, and this might be a good way to
help us focus. So my idea would be to do this after Geoff presents.
> 
> About the jabber thing: wouldn't it be more useful to see if we can 
> stream the audio? That way there is no need for a volunteer to break any 
> typing records and jabber remains available as an out of band channel. 
> (Do we have a jabber conference server, btw?)

I am told the IETF jabber server is always up. Frankly I have no confidence
that we will get enough reliable throughput from an arbitrary hotel to
run streaming, whereas jabber has a good chance of working even if the
network is spotty. So I think we should go for jabber anyway. If anyone
volunteers to run audio streaming, so much the better.

(co-chair hat on again)

We are still looking for a jabber scribe!

    Brian