Subject: Agenda for Problem Meeting - 15 July

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:58:46 -0400

Agenda

1. Discussion of Agenda

2. Discussion of open Problem Stmt Issues
     Issues as described in Elwyn's email to the list

- Further traffic on 'ISSUE: Determinants for timeliness in Section 2.1'
- Appeal mechanisms
- The need for smaller protocol specifications'
- 'ADs who are also WG chairs'
- Causes of "problems"
- Accommodating ESL speakers'
- 'Fixed font vs multiple fonts' etc
-Plenary decision

3. Discussion of Process Draft

- Sense of the room  regarding the near-term
          recommendations in the process document?
- Do we think it makes sense to start an effort to understand
          our values, mission, scope and goals?  Or is that
          just a waste of time?
- Do we think that a leadership reorganization is necessary
          to address some of the problems in the problem statement?
- Do we think that changes are required to the standards track
          process?
- Should the efforts mentioned in the previous three bullets
          be undertaken serially, or in parallel?  By a single
          group or multiple groups?
- Is a WG the best way to affect these changes?  Or is there
          some other way that would work better?

4. Open discussion on issues not covered.

---

From: Cyrus Shaoul <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:23:39 -0400

Hi All,

I have been lurking on the list for a while, but I wanted to contribute
my thoughts on the problem of difficulties in participation by non-native
English speakers.

In draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-02, it seems that the only place
where a related problem is discussed in section 2.6.6 (Concentration of
Influence in Too Few Hands). I support this section, as I feel that the
second paragraph describes a real problem. I work with a team of
Japanese IETF participants and they agree that this problem exists for
them.

There was also some discussion in a list thread called "Accomodating ESL
speakers" recently about how non-native speakers have problems
understanding other native and non-native speakers at the IETF meetings.

I think it would good to add a little section about this problem to the
problem-statement, unless it is already too late to do so. (I have ideas
on how to solve these problems, but I will save them until it is time to
provide solutions.)

<SECTION.TITLE>
Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native English speaking
participants.
</SECTION.TITLE>

At IETF meetings, many participants are non-native English speakers.
Many of these participants currently have trouble understanding and
following along with WG discussions when the person at the microphones,
speaks very quickly, with a strong accent, or in a very animated way
that can make it hard for non-native English speakers to understand what
they are saying. Another problem is when speakers use excessive amounts
of colloquial or idiomatic phrases. The meaning of these phrases, such
as "water under the bridge" and "whatcha talking about" and unclear and
can confuse non-native english speakers. A further problem for
non-native english speakers is that the effort to simultaneously read
slides with small letters on a screen and hear and understand the
content of a speech can be too much to handle. Evidence of this is in
the number of non-native English speakers taking photographs of the
projection screen and making private recordings of WG meetings for later
study (making it harder for them to interactively participate during the
WG meeting.)

This problem is amplified when speakers do not speak into the microphone,
or use the microphone improperly. When the microphone is not used, the
sound may be too soft to be comprhensible to non-native speakers even
though it is marginally comprehensible to native english speakers. When
a microphone is not used properly, for example clipping it to a necktie
and then letting it drop, it can add small amounts of feedback to the
sound, making it very hard to understand for non-native English speakers.

There is also a problem with using the Jabber chat system with an
official scribe as a support tool for non-native English speakers. The
benefit of being able to read a summary of the WG meeting in text in
realtime is undeniable, but haveing to constantly look down at a lap-top
(if you have one) while listening to a presentation is difficult and
distracting. Also, very few work groups use the Jabber system, and even
fewer have good scribes.

Another problem is the delay in getting the meeting minutes and
presentation slides published electronically. This process is uneven and
for some WGs, may take more than one month to complete, leaving some
non-native English speakers in the dark on what was said, and what
consensus was reached during the meeting. 

------------------

Does this make sense? I hope this point can get added in some form to
the problem statement.

Thanks, 

Cyrus

Cyrus Shaoul
NTT Advanced Technology Corp.
[email-masked]

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:00:27 -0400

Cyrus Shaoul wrote:
> very few work groups use the Jabber system, 
> and even fewer have good scribes.
	It seems that scribes and notetakers are often recruited at the
last minute -- just as the WG session is starting. Often, there are
either no volunteers or the chair is left accepting the assistance of
the first who volunteers. This process is not one that is likely to
result in quality results.
	I suggest that a WG Chair should be expected to arrange for
proper and competent notetaking and Jabber scribes well before the WG
session begins. 

		bob wyman

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:59:16 +0200

Jabber isn't a formal requirement, but meeting minutes are.
So I would say a chair has an obligation to find a note
taker, but a jabber scribe is an as-available extra.

   Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:19:37 +0200

> Does this make sense? I hope this point can get added in some form to

Thank you.

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:37:06 -0700

> result in quality results.

yeah, i should have started earlier on arranging all this for vienna. my current
thinking is to set-up a permanent server that hosts conference rooms for all
wgs, along with a better set of instructions...

/mtr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:10:59 +0200

>> either no volunteers or the chair is left accepting the assistance of

is there some reason that wg official scribe and jabber scribe cannot be
exactly the same typing actions?  in other words, is there any reason
that typing notes to jabber cannot serve as the notes given to the
chair?  One advantage is that the chair then gets comments included from
others.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:47:43 -0400

Dave Crocker wrote:
> any reason that typing notes to jabber cannot serve as 
> the notes given to the chair?  One advantage is that 
> the chair then gets comments included from others.
	Using such a method of collecting notes would have the odd
effect of giving an "advantage" to those who monitored the meeting via
Jabber since they would be able to ensure that their comments were
included in the notes while those who are physically at the meeting are
often limited in their ability to comment due to limits on simultaneous
speakers, access to the microphone, the chair's willingness to recognize
them, etc. If this advantage comes to be recognized as significant, we
might find even those who are physically at the meeting focusing more on
the Jabber session than on the meeting itself.
	It should also be recognized that meeting transcriptions are
often not "complete" as they are written. A good note taker will revise,
amend, and reformat the notes prior to submitting them. For instance, in
an effort to compress the text, a comment by Dave Crocker might be
recorded as being from "crock" in the raw notes but expanded out to
"Dave Crocker" in post-meeting editing. I think we should not expect
that raw jabber logs will suffice as meeting minutes.

		bob wyman

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:16:39 -0400

Cyrus Shaoul wrote:
> Another problem is the delay in getting the meeting 
> minutes and presentation slides published electronically. 
> This process is uneven and for some WGs, may take more 
> than one month to complete, leaving some non-native 
> English speakers in the dark on what was said, and what 
	It seems that slides could be published more rapidly if WG
Chairs simply required that slides, if in some "common" format, be
loaded onto a common machine (the chair's laptop?) for display during
sessions. This would centralize the things and thus relieve the chair of
the problem of having to hunt down the slides after the meeting. All
might benefit from this process since it would tend to eliminate the
time-wasting delays as successive speakers go through the process of
trying to get their laptops hooked up to the slide projectors.

		bob wyman

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:28:21 -0400

> sessions. 

unfortunately there is no common format.  yes, most presentation tools
speak powerpoint, but even small font changes can break a presentation.

of course, we're not trying to solve problems in this group, we're just
trying to list them.  and I agree that this problem is a serious
enough one that it should be on the list.

Keith

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:35:14 -0400

I've used jabber logs to help get meeting minutes together,
but they can be pretty spotty (although sometimes they're
extraordinarily great).  This time I made an audio recording
of the problem-statement meeting, just in case.

Melinda

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:42:03 +0200

Hi all,

I just wanna give my view on this:
I agree fully with the problem, since often non-native english speaker are 
somehow lost during IETF meetings (even me, mother-tongue is german). 
Native english speaker can go often very fast with their speech, sometimes 
without microphone and perhaps a very strong accent. So others might not 
understand about the ongoing discussions are.

Even the newcomers introduction is hard to understand for non-native 
speaker (those introduction I have attended).

Martin

--On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 09:23:39 -0400 Cyrus Shaoul 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

| Hi All,
|
| I have been lurking on the list for a while, but I wanted to contribute
| my thoughts on the problem of difficulties in participation by non-native
| English speakers.
|
| In draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-02, it seems that the only place
| where a related problem is discussed in section 2.6.6 (Concentration of
| Influence in Too Few Hands). I support this section, as I feel that the
| second paragraph describes a real problem. I work with a team of
| Japanese IETF participants and they agree that this problem exists for
| them.
|
| There was also some discussion in a list thread called "Accomodating ESL
| speakers" recently about how non-native speakers have problems
| understanding other native and non-native speakers at the IETF meetings.
|
| I think it would good to add a little section about this problem to the
| problem-statement, unless it is already too late to do so. (I have ideas
| on how to solve these problems, but I will save them until it is time to
| provide solutions.)
|
|
| <SECTION.TITLE>
| Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native English speaking
| participants.
| </SECTION.TITLE>
|
| At IETF meetings, many participants are non-native English speakers.
| Many of these participants currently have trouble understanding and
| following along with WG discussions when the person at the microphones,
| speaks very quickly, with a strong accent, or in a very animated way
| that can make it hard for non-native English speakers to understand what
| they are saying. Another problem is when speakers use excessive amounts
| of colloquial or idiomatic phrases. The meaning of these phrases, such
| as "water under the bridge" and "whatcha talking about" and unclear and
| can confuse non-native english speakers. A further problem for
| non-native english speakers is that the effort to simultaneously read
| slides with small letters on a screen and hear and understand the
| content of a speech can be too much to handle. Evidence of this is in
| the number of non-native English speakers taking photographs of the
| projection screen and making private recordings of WG meetings for later
| study (making it harder for them to interactively participate during the
| WG meeting.)
|
| This problem is amplified when speakers do not speak into the microphone,
| or use the microphone improperly. When the microphone is not used, the
| sound may be too soft to be comprhensible to non-native speakers even
| though it is marginally comprehensible to native english speakers. When
| a microphone is not used properly, for example clipping it to a necktie
| and then letting it drop, it can add small amounts of feedback to the
| sound, making it very hard to understand for non-native English speakers.
|
| There is also a problem with using the Jabber chat system with an
| official scribe as a support tool for non-native English speakers. The
| benefit of being able to read a summary of the WG meeting in text in
| realtime is undeniable, but haveing to constantly look down at a lap-top
| (if you have one) while listening to a presentation is difficult and
| distracting. Also, very few work groups use the Jabber system, and even
| fewer have good scribes.
|
| Another problem is the delay in getting the meeting minutes and
| presentation slides published electronically. This process is uneven and
| for some WGs, may take more than one month to complete, leaving some
| non-native English speakers in the dark on what was said, and what
| consensus was reached during the meeting.
|
| ------------------
|
| Does this make sense? I hope this point can get added in some form to
| the problem statement.
|
| Thanks,
|
| Cyrus
|
|
| Cyrus Shaoul
| NTT Advanced Technology Corp.
| [email-masked]
|
|

Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:41:17 -0700

To play the Devil's Advocate here -

One thing that we MUST take note of is that any multi-lingual services add
cost and overhead to the IETF's already financially taxed processes. How
would anyone propose we pay for these expanded services?

Also this brings up an issue of perhaps it is OK for a WG to have a
mother-language as it were and to conduct its operations in that language.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cyrus Shaoul" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native English speaking
participants.

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:01:26 +0200

--On Thursday, July 17, 2003 07:41:17 -0700 todd glassey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

| To play the Devil's Advocate here -

Good to have it :-)

|
| One thing that we MUST take note of is that any multi-lingual services add
| cost and overhead to the IETF's already financially taxed processes. How
| would anyone propose we pay for these expanded services?

I feel that is too much, adding a multi-lingual services (as the UN does, 
and producing tons of paper each year).
The point as raised is, that everybody should be aware of the lingual 
capabilities of each other pariticipants. That just an issue of respect.

|
| Also this brings up an issue of perhaps it is OK for a WG to have a
| mother-language as it were and to conduct its operations in that language.
|
| Todd
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
| To: "Cyrus Shaoul" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
| Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:42 AM
| Subject: Re: Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native English speaking
| participants.
|
|
|> Hi all,
|>
|> I just wanna give my view on this:
|> I agree fully with the problem, since often non-native english speaker
|> are somehow lost during IETF meetings (even me, mother-tongue is german).
|> Native english speaker can go often very fast with their speech,
|> sometimes without microphone and perhaps a very strong accent. So others
|> might not understand about the ongoing discussions are.
|>
|> Even the newcomers introduction is hard to understand for non-native
|> speaker (those introduction I have attended).
|>
|> Martin
|>
|> --On Wednesday, July 16, 2003 09:23:39 -0400 Cyrus Shaoul
|> <[email-masked]> wrote:
|>
|> | Hi All,
|> |
|> | I have been lurking on the list for a while, but I wanted to contribute
|> | my thoughts on the problem of difficulties in participation by
| non-native
|> | English speakers.
|> |
|> | In draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-02, it seems that the only place
|> | where a related problem is discussed in section 2.6.6 (Concentration of
|> | Influence in Too Few Hands). I support this section, as I feel that the
|> | second paragraph describes a real problem. I work with a team of
|> | Japanese IETF participants and they agree that this problem exists for
|> | them.
|> |
|> | There was also some discussion in a list thread called "Accomodating
|> | ESL speakers" recently about how non-native speakers have problems
|> | understanding other native and non-native speakers at the IETF
|> | meetings.
|> |
|> | I think it would good to add a little section about this problem to the
|> | problem-statement, unless it is already too late to do so. (I have
|> | ideas on how to solve these problems, but I will save them until it is
|> | time to provide solutions.)
|> |
|> |
|> | <SECTION.TITLE>
|> | Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native English speaking
|> | participants.
|> | </SECTION.TITLE>
|> |
|> | At IETF meetings, many participants are non-native English speakers.
|> | Many of these participants currently have trouble understanding and
|> | following along with WG discussions when the person at the microphones,
|> | speaks very quickly, with a strong accent, or in a very animated way
|> | that can make it hard for non-native English speakers to understand
|> | what they are saying. Another problem is when speakers use excessive
|> | amounts of colloquial or idiomatic phrases. The meaning of these
|> | phrases, such as "water under the bridge" and "whatcha talking about"
|> | and unclear and can confuse non-native english speakers. A further
|> | problem for non-native english speakers is that the effort to
|> | simultaneously read slides with small letters on a screen and hear and
|> | understand the content of a speech can be too much to handle. Evidence
|> | of this is in the number of non-native English speakers taking
|> | photographs of the projection screen and making private recordings of
|> | WG meetings for later study (making it harder for them to
|> | interactively participate during the WG meeting.)
|> |
|> | This problem is amplified when speakers do not speak into the
| microphone,
|> | or use the microphone improperly. When the microphone is not used, the
|> | sound may be too soft to be comprhensible to non-native speakers even
|> | though it is marginally comprehensible to native english speakers. When
|> | a microphone is not used properly, for example clipping it to a necktie
|> | and then letting it drop, it can add small amounts of feedback to the
|> | sound, making it very hard to understand for non-native English
| speakers.
|> |
|> | There is also a problem with using the Jabber chat system with an
|> | official scribe as a support tool for non-native English speakers. The
|> | benefit of being able to read a summary of the WG meeting in text in
|> | realtime is undeniable, but haveing to constantly look down at a
|> | lap-top (if you have one) while listening to a presentation is
|> | difficult and distracting. Also, very few work groups use the Jabber
|> | system, and even fewer have good scribes.
|> |
|> | Another problem is the delay in getting the meeting minutes and
|> | presentation slides published electronically. This process is uneven
|> | and for some WGs, may take more than one month to complete, leaving
|> | some non-native English speakers in the dark on what was said, and what
|> | consensus was reached during the meeting.
|> |
|> | ------------------
|> |
|> | Does this make sense? I hope this point can get added in some form to
|> | the problem statement.
|> |
|> | Thanks,
|> |
|> | Cyrus
|> |
|> |
|> | Cyrus Shaoul
|> | NTT Advanced Technology Corp.
|> | [email-masked]
|> |
|> |
|>
|>
|>
|> Martin Stiemerling
|>
|> NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
|> IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de
|

Martin Stiemerling