Return to workshop CVS log

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

Annotation of researchv10no/sys/inet/workshop, revision 1.1.1.1

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.