| Internet Engineering Task Force | J.P.J. Jaeggli |
| Internet-Draft | Zynga |
| Intended status: Informational | J.A. Arkko |
| Expires: May 11, 2013 | Ericsson |
| November 07, 2012 |
Observations on the experience and nature of Large Interim Meetings
draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-03
Planning, particpipation and conclusions from the experience of participating in the IETF LIM activity on september 29th 2012.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http:/⁠/⁠datatracker.ietf.org/⁠drafts/⁠current/⁠.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http:/⁠/⁠trustee.ietf.org/⁠license-⁠info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The genesis of this draft was the experience of planning and participating in the so called IETF LIM (Large Interim Meeting) held adjacent to the fall RIPE meeting on the 29th of September 2012. Three working groups met, OPSEC, V6OPS and SIDR. It is intended that the draft cover planning, the operation of the meeting, and an attempt at some conclusions based on the experience.
The fact that the draft represents the vantage point of a limited number of persons at this time necessarily limits the utility of the draft and undoubtedly as result, some key elements of the planning and motivation will be missed. The Large Interim Meeting is the product of efforts over a number of years by multiple parties including the ISOC Board, IETF management (Chair, IESG, IAB, IAOC, IAD) working group chairs and probably others. To the extent that this draft can be made better through the input of others, The authors would invite contributions and criticism.
The Sept 29th LIM was the most recent attempt that we are aware of an interim meeting scheduled by IETF management for the purposes of accumulating interim meetings in a common location. The IETF's traditional model for interim meetings has been that virtual or physical interim meetins are scheduled by working-group participants in conjunction with chairs and coordinating ADs [IESGinterim]. It is not the first attempt at such meeting. It's status therefore an experiment is worth bearing mind in understanding the rest of the text.
The LIM was scheduled to coencide with the end of RIPE 65 and Occured on Saturday Sept 29th 2012. Ripe 65 was at the Hotel Okura Amseterdam from September 24th-28th. It is our understanding that coordination with the RIPE program committee occured only After IETF 84 (an IAB member meber also happens toserve on the RIPE program committee)
It is, my understanding that discussion of the possibility of a LIM style meeting within this time window occurred in early 2011 if not before. The v6ops chairs were asked at various times to consider particpation in such a meeting in other potential locations. The discussion related to this interim meeting commenced in June. The stated rational for targeting v6ops involvement in a large interim was the volume of work that we process during and between meetings. For reasons that we will try and explore the expectation of a volume of work was not borne out by the Agenda and meeting itself.
A previous proposal for a LIM style meeting to have met in Malta in 2009 attracted a sponsor (Google) but was ultimatetly cancled on the basis of expected participation (60 particpants) and remaining time constraints. The Malta LIM was to have included the RAI area plus SOFTWIRE and BEHAVE.
Some questions existed in the planning phase as to the nature of the logisitical support provided by the secretatit for the meeting as well as, remote participation, and the actual timinng of the meeting. Unlike a traditional interim the responsibility for satisfying these details was for better or worse in the hands of the secretariat, which meant a reduced workload for the chairs but it also left some details undecided until they could be announced, a hotel contract for the meeting rooms wasn't completed until after the 4 week window for announcing and interim meeting had passed
A show of hands and subsequent mailing list followup were done to gauge v6ops interest in participation in an interim meeting. Roughly 50 participants, mostly active ones indicated significant interest in an interim collocated with RIPE 65 which we deemed sufficient to proceed. Superficially, only a fraction of the v6ops attendees are represented by the segment of the group indicating interest. When the numbers are mapped against active participants and draft authors, interested participants in the interim likely represent a bigger proportion of that group.
Two of the three scheduled meetings were given 4 hour windows, the third SIDR (which routinely has interim meetings) had effectivetly the entire day.
Immediately after IETF 84, the working group chairs of v6ops proposed an interim draft deadline 2 weeks out from the interim meeting (Saturday the 15th). This was to be the basis for the acceptance of revised or new drafts onto the agenda. The goal of the deadline was to be able to identify drafts which had changed and which had issues to be addressed prior to any additional action.
Two OPS area working groups met, OPSEC and V6OPS, Effectively one after the other albiet seperated by lunch. The SIDR working group met in parallel.
Both ops-area meetings came in substantially below their alloted time. V6OPS was allocated 4 hours and completed in two. SIDR broke for lunch, returned, and finished early, however it used a substantially higher percentage of the allocated time. Possibly because it was a Saturday remote participation was effectively non-existant
The observation of one participant in v6ops (Jari Arkko) was that they came prepared to discuss topics, for which the document authors were not present. Looking at what we were able to schedule for the agenda, appart from the discussion of the state of drafts in various states of processing and the attention that they required, the presentations (3) were associated with drafts for which the authors were requesting feedback.
Remote participation was supported by volunteers from meetecho using their own application. Hotel Okura wireless infrastrucuture was used to support the meeting. An outage of the hotel network was observed during the opsec meeting with the result that remote participation would have been interupted for about 10 minutes had there been any active contribution required from remote participants. Philip Mathews reports having attanded the meeting remotely.
Interim Meeting registration ended up being about 40 participants, 2 days prior to the meeting that number was 23, provisions had been made for around 100 attendees.
Despite misgivings with V6OPS as patient zero for the large interim meeting concept, once committed we endeavored to make the meeting work for the participants that took the time out of their weekend to attend, or as was my case, traveled specifically for the Interim meeting. As an experiment I think a lot of things are worth doing once and I hope that some lessons can be derived from the experience that have value for future interims.
An observation that we would make about the V6OPS interim submission deadline (and what we believe to be relative failure) is that it appears that authors who are not planning to attend a meeting, are less inclined to revise a document in support of a meeting they are not attending. The corollary, is that authors planning on a attending a meeting will rev their documents, or possibly that a revised document is justification to attend (This applies to IETF meetings in general).
While this may be a tautology, Interim meetings probably are more successful when they appear necessary. SIDR clearly is a close knit group of people (even when they disagree) working hard on a design problem. The required time is due to the necessity of going over every issue to be addressed within a constrained temporal space. While the SIDR interim(s) may not be valid as the measurement of consensus they promote a common understanding of the problems and solution space among the key participants that ultimately will be the basis of consensus.
The particular conjunction of the LIM and RIPE was proposed several months prior to coordination with the RIPE program committee. Given that the RIPE meeting traditionally ends on Friday with Lunch it is possible that tighter coordination with the RIPE organization could have coupled the event more directly. There is an implicit assumption on our part that tighter coordination with an operator meeting means ceding control over the program to a certain extent to fit within that framework.
The RIPE meeting is a week long like an IETF meeting, and if the goal of a conjoint interim is evangelism, cross pollination or outreach, (is it?) then fitting more directly into the program would probably have better results for both groups. As it is, the bulk of the attendees in OPSEC and V6OPS were present to attend RIPE as well, or attended RIPE and stayed for the interim.
A specific suggestion provided by several RIPE participants was to leverage the post-RIPE friday afternoon as opposed to the following day in order to reduce the commitment required by RIPE participants who would otherwise have to remain an extra day and therefore travel on saturday. A common experience I have had with many *NOG meetings and indeed with the IETF is ancillary meetings packing in either before or after a core meeting thereby increasing the overall cost (time,money,commitment) associated with the overall activity.
V6ops attendance at an IETF meeting is typically in excess of 200 attendees. An interim meeting that attracts 25 of those and limited remote participation is necessarily exclusionary by default if not deliberately. If useful work that advances drafts, gets done, is that exclusion a bad thing? The resulting meeting input is not useful for measuring meaningful consensus. V6OPS got a new draft out of discussion that occured during the interim meeting.
The history of interim meetings has illustrative examples of working groups or design teams, with numerus interim meetings (IP storage/NFSv4, Lemonade, 6lowpan, Behave SIDR etc) that demonstrate the utility of frequent physical or virtual interims. It is possible that there are properties (demmands on immediacy, collaboration with other SDOs etc) that make some working groups more effective at utilizing interims than others.
Area Director's and IAB members were rather well represented at the LIM, While the attendance of both of our Directors was appreciated I'm not sure that it's a good use of their time. In particular if the frequency of these events were fixed as some rate in the future, this represents an additional workload for which huge benefits due not appear likely to ensue. In the case of of colocation with a RIPE meeting some of these participants were attending already. Jari Arkko observed, "I would probably not have made the trip just for RIPE this time (although I usually do travel to them), nor would I have attended just for the LIM itself."
Some entities related to the IETF clearly have outreach and advocacy as part of the mission, Internet Society, IETF chair, Liaisons, edu-team and so forth. It is not clear to me, that beyond the scope of chartered working group documents that end up as part of the RFC series, that working group activities including meetings are well suited for use as an outreach mechanism. The IETF meeting as a whole, which certainly an opportunity for advancing the work of the respective working groups is also an opportunity for cross pollination, for the collegial building of consensus that advances joint efforts. To the extent that mini-IETF's do not appear to support those opportunities relative to the three times annually meeting, the utility of LIMs as outreach tools lacks legitimacy.
It's not easy to draw strong conclusions from a single experiment. Perhaps we have and extensive control group in the form of working groups that did not avail themselves of the virtual interim. Some thoughts follow.
Mobilizing IETF secretariat and meeting support resources in support of interim meetings that ultimately are lightly attended does not, on the face of it seem like it works on a cost recovery basis.
The requirements for an interim meeting are typically modest, aggregating them makes them less so.
Expectations for the level of availability that an IETF network provides are expensive to deliver in the case of a smaller more ephemeral meeting.
In cases where interim meetings leverage resources that have higher availability/performance expectations such as the corporate offices of some of the participants, the results may be substantially better than what we can expect to be delivered by a hotel network contractor.
Interim meetings are typically organized around short term goals, the longer term planning needs associated with participants budgeting for travel and making time commitments are incompatible with the short term nature of current interim planning. Immediacy appears to trump other considerations for working groups and desgin teams that meet in signular interims.
The experience of OPSEC and V6OPS was not I think a huge success, it is likely that some of the rational discussed in the "incentives for participation" section plays a role in the ability of OPS working groups to invite work to be revised on the basis of interim deadlines. By all accounts the SIDR working group had a successful productive meeting. It is also likely in our understanding that SIDR would have met in the absence of the LIM with similar results.
The authors would like to thank Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Randy Bush, Spencer Dawkins and Philip Matthews for offering constructive input or feedback on this draft.
This memo Makes no request of IANA.
No security consequences are envisioned as a proeduct of this draft.
| [IESGinterim] | IESG, "IESG Guidance on Interim Meetings, Conference Calls and Jabber Sessions", 2008. |
| [RFC2418] | Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. |