Return to workshop CVS log

Up to [Research Unix] / researchv10no / sys / inet

Annotation of researchv10no/sys/inet/workshop, revision 1.1

1.1     ! root        1: From arpa!encore.com!boykin Tue May 23 09:29:03 0400 1989
        !             2: Received:  by multimax.encore.com (5.61/25-eef)
        !             3:        id AA16965; Tue, 23 May 89 09:29:03 -0400
        !             4: Date: Tue, 23 May 89 09:29:03 -0400
        !             5: From: Joe Boykin <[email protected]>
        !             6: Message-Id: <[email protected]>
        !             7: To: [email protected], [email protected]
        !             8: Subject: Re: paper review update
        !             9: 
        !            10: > I like Joe's suggestions, except with regard to the way we actually
        !            11: > run panels.  I would prefer to see panels in which we pick
        !            12: > people and questions in advance (topics that he suggests are fine)
        !            13: > and ask people to prepare position statments on these questions.
        !            14: > Ideally, perhaps 2 questions per panel but more like 5 or 10
        !            15: > minutes to lay out a position.
        !            16: > 
        !            17: > My concern is that in a 2-minute comment on a question, one doesn't
        !            18: > have time to say anything provocative.  The audience then addresses
        !            19: > questions based more on their general knowledge regarding the speaker
        !            20: > then on the comments made.  More then 10 minutes turns into short
        !            21: > talks, which we should obviously avoid.  I would hope that somewhere
        !            22: > in between we can get people to address the question in enough detail
        !            23: > to trigger a serious dialog.
        !            24: 
        !            25: I guess it depends on how you view the "panels".  Kens view says that
        !            26: these are, essentially, a group presentation with some discussion
        !            27: afterwards.  My view is that the panels are more dialogue and Q&A.
        !            28: 
        !            29: > Is email a workable way to discuss this?  Perhaps some subgroup of us
        !            30: > with an interest in this should formulate a proposal (conference
        !            31: > phone call?) and then circulate it for general reaction?  I would be
        !            32: > happy to participate...
        !            33: 
        !            34: I agree with trying to divide this into a subgroup.  Any (or all) can
        !            35: get involved, but I'll make bets that some of you don't really care
        !            36: (or at least don't want to participate).  As for conference calls...
        !            37: every time I have one it always winds up that half the people can't
        !            38: hear the other half and its more frustrating than useful.  Let's stick
        !            39: with email.
        !            40: 
        !            41: I would like to have this resolved ASAP so we can also decide how many
        !            42: presentors there will be.  It's almost time to send out acceptance/
        !            43: rejection letters.
        !            44: 
        !            45: On another note... The Campbell paper is being mailed to all of you
        !            46: today, along with registration and housing request forms.  Some of
        !            47: you have already returned the registration forms, so you can
        !            48: ignore the duplication (its not worth my time to make up selective
        !            49: packets).
        !            50: 
        !            51: jb
        !            52: 
        !            53: 

This archive runs on limited infrastructure. Preserving old code on modern bandwidth. Automated agents are requested to crawl responsibly.