Subject: [Cellar] Final comments on draft agenda for IETF 96 Berlin, call for volunteers to take notes

From: Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:44:49 -0400

Hi all,

The final agenda for CELLAR is due today at 23:59 UTC.  Please submit any
comments/requests/inquiries by 22:59 UTC.

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-cellar

I've also noted the discussion on the IETF list re: the difficulty finding
volunteers to take session notes in the past, so if you plan on attending
and would like to commit to taking notes in advance, please drop me a line.
To recap some of the key points from the original discussion about taking
notes:  notes don't have to be transcripts of the sessions, you don't need
to worry about the "style" of your notes, and Etherpad is strongly
recommended.

Best,

Tessa

---

From: Dave Rice <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:14:43 -0400

> On Jul 11, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Tessa Fallon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The final agenda for CELLAR is due today at 23:59 UTC.  Please submit any comments/requests/inquiries by 22:59 UTC.
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-cellar <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-cellar>

The schedule looks okay to me, but should we (as working group) also volunteer to lead discussion for the reviews of EBML, Matroska, and FFV1? Is the level of granularity of the schedule typical for a working group meeting agenda or should we refine it more?

> I've also noted the discussion on the IETF list re: the difficulty finding volunteers to take session notes in the past, so if you plan on attending and would like to commit to taking notes in advance, please drop me a line. To recap some of the key points from the original discussion about taking notes:  notes don't have to be transcripts of the sessions, you don't need to worry about the "style" of your notes, and Etherpad is strongly recommended.  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tessa
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:47:48 -0700

Dave Rice wrote:
> The schedule looks okay to me, but should we (as working group) also
> volunteer to lead discussion for the reviews of EBML, Matroska, and
> FFV1? Is the level of granularity of the schedule typical for a working
> group meeting agenda or should we refine it more?

The granularity here is pretty typical (see, e.g., [1] for another 
example). There is usually one discussion leader chosen (whoever 
requested the agenda time, or, as necessary, by the chairs) who will 
prepare a quick slide deck* to guide the discussion.

Last I had heard, Jerome Martinez had agreed to lead the FFV1 
discussion, and Tessa was still waiting for confirmation from someone to 
lead the EBML/Matroska discussions.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/agenda?item=agenda-96-rtcweb.html

*If you are not used to seeing IETF slide decks, they are typically very 
bare, with plain black text on a plain white background, with perhaps a 
chart or two if it helps make clear a technical point.

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:23:15 +0200

Le 11/07/2016 à 17:47, Timothy B. Terriberry a écrit :
> Last I had heard, Jerome Martinez had agreed to lead the FFV1 discussion,

I confirm.

> and Tessa was still waiting for confirmation from someone to lead the 
> EBML/Matroska discussions.
>
> *If you are not used to seeing IETF slide decks, they are typically 
> very bare, with plain black text on a plain white background, with 
> perhaps a chart or two if it helps make clear a technical point.
>