Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:43:16 +0100

Dear IETF WGs' Chairs,

I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present per WG
draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy). We need
to use more input and have more face2face (F2F) discussion in our meeting.
I remember we discussed this before but it will be nice if we know what
chairs are thinking before few days of the meeting.

Meeting time is money and that we need to improve the use of IETF
times within F2F WG discussions and decisions.  If an author cannot
describe issues of draft in 10 minutes then it will be difficult for the
WG listeners to discuss and make decisions within another 10 minutes per
item. Please comment.

Best wishes,

Abdussalam

WG Meetings are needed for group interactions and group decisions not
individual presentations or individual decisions.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:49:17 +0000

Abdussalam

you write:
> I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy).
> We need to use more input and have more face2face (F2F) discussion in our meeting.

How many IETF meetings have you attended, and what experience do you base this recommendation on?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [[email-masked]]
Sent: 24 February 2014 03:43
To: ietf
Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions

Dear IETF WGs' Chairs,

I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy). We need to use more input and have more face2face (F2F) discussion in our meeting. I remember we discussed this before but it will be nice if we know what chairs are thinking before few days of the meeting.

Meeting time is money and that we need to improve the use of IETF times within F2F WG discussions and decisions.  If an author cannot describe issues of draft in 10 minutes then it will be difficult for the WG listeners to discuss and make decisions within another 10 minutes per item. Please comment.

Best wishes,

Abdussalam

WG Meetings are needed for group interactions and group decisions not individual presentations or individual decisions.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:13:44 -0800

> How many IETF meetings have you attended, and what experience do you base this recommendation on?
...
>> Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions
  ...
>> I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy).

I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and even if it 
weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of response.  It doesn't 
matter what the background is of the person asking the question.

What matters is whether a rigid rule limiting time per topic is helpful.

I think it isn't.  Some topics require more.  Some require less.

The usual focus in IETF discussions about meeting management is, 
instead, about /how/ time is used, rather than how much of it, notably 
pressing to avoid tutorial or reportorial content, instead focusing on 
discussion of pending items, such as those creating an impasse.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:37:12 -0600

Abdussalam,

We used this approach in the SIPPING WG for a number of years and it's
really not at all effective.   We ended up with lots of WG documents and
very slow progress because we didn't have time to resolve real issues at
the f2f meetings.

In my experience, a model that allows time for critical issues to be more
thoroughly discussed is much more effective.   As you note 10 minutes would
only allow one to summarize issues and wouldn't allow time for getting WG
input to resolve any of those issues.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:38:47 -0000

Abdussalam could usefully clarify whether he means "limit the presentation time
of an I-D" or "limit the time spent on an I-D".

But in either case, I think that I would prefer to see the opposite to such
limitations. I would like to see technical topics that the WG needs to discuss
receive plenty of agenda time (and that to include as much presentation time as
is needed to seed the discussion and explain the authors' and others' positions
on a topic), while I would prefer to avoid presentations of "this is the status
of my draft" and "this is what my draft says" which can be mugged up in advance
by reading the I-Ds.

In fact, I am increasingly weary of catalogues of 5 minute presentations (to the
point of wondering whether to fire chairs for this - RTG Area chairs take note!
:-) I know it is "important" to be on an agenda if you are going to travel to an
IETF meeting. I know it is "important" to show that you are making a
contribution to the WG. But we have to get over it!

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: 24 February 2014 14:14
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and
> face2face discussions
> 
> >> Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and
face2face
> discussions
> draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit policy).
> 
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:38:58 -0500

--On Monday, February 24, 2014 06:13 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
>>> Baryun [[email-masked]] Sent: 24 February 2014
>>> 03:43
>>> To: ietf
>>> I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes
>>> present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual
>>> draft (as limit policy).
> 
> 
> I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and
> even if it weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of
> response.  It doesn't matter what the background is of the
> person asking the question.

Dave, FWIW, I disagree, both about the "primarily ad hominem"
suggestion and about the comment about background.

If Lloyd had said "you are a known <NegativeCategory>, therefore
your suggestion should be ignored" that would be primarily an ad
hominem attack.  Although Lloyd may have intended it more
harshly (I won't guess at his motivations), the question about
background seems to me to be relevant.  Let me try an analogy
that, given some recent postings, shouldn't be too far afield.
Suppose someone had posted a note to the IETF list or some
meeting list saying "during the upcoming meeting, it is really
important that everyone have a proper traditional English
breakfast".  I'd consider "what background, especially in
nutrition and related fields, do you have that justifies your
giving that advice" to be a perfectly reasonable question.  I'd
consider it even more reasonable if I happened to be aware of
recommendations the UK DEFRA and its predecessors had made about
those breakfasts.

best,
   john

p.s. I agree with your conclusion that the suggestion of a
blanket rule in that area is not useful, I just question your
introduction and assertion that Lloyd's question was improper.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:01:30 -0500

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> The usual focus in IETF discussions about meeting management is, instead,
> about /how/ time is used, rather than how much of it, notably pressing to
> avoid tutorial or reportorial content, instead focusing on discussion of
> pending items, such as those creating an impasse.

The current arrangements are bogus.

Either cross-WG and cross area participation is useful or it is not.

Case One: Cross area participation is considered useful.

Make time for tutorial and introductory presentations because they are
essential if there is going to be cross-area presentation.

Case Two: Cross area participation is not considered useful.

Make WG sessions a day long and schedule 40 at once, don't expect people to
participate in multiple groups. Just like W3C does it.

I find tutorials very useful because most often the reason that a WG is not
going anyplace or about to make a security blunder it is because the people
involved really don't have a comprehensive grasp of what they are trying to
achieve and how.

There are many people who are very much focused on IETF process and getting
documents published. I don't care about the number of documents published,
I care about the number of people who read and take note of them.

So for example we are holding an opening WG for Trans. Let us imagine that
in one scenario we spend the whole meeting working on drafts and getting
them completed a meeting earlier than otherwise. And in a second scenario
we spend part of the meeting introducing the concepts and as a result get
buy in from the Microsoft or Apple rep who wasn't otherwise planning to
support TRANS because they had their own idea.

Which outcome is to be preferred? I know which I would take.

What might work rather better is if we start using this thing called the
Internet to do the tutorial type stuff. Drafts are good but they don't
necessarily communicate the message effectively. I can't really tell from a
draft whether someone is B/S or not but I'll know it pretty soon in a
presentation. So putting up tutorial type presentations on the YouTube is
one way to offload information.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:40:33 +0100

> contribution to the WG. But we have to get over it!

Adrian,

I can't speak to the "important to be on the agenda" issue, but I will say this: 

F2f time is too valuable to be spent on issues that could have been brought up and (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list, as well as presentations that just serve to list "so I changed these 42 things since last meeting" summaries. They actually are extremely un-productive (although I do get a lot of email processed when sitting through one of those) ....especially since RFCDIFF is both more precise, and in colour ;)

I'd probably prefer that all that could be (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list should be (attempted) resolved on the mailing-list - and, only if that fails is agenda-time for the f2f sessions warranted - and on issues, not on "documents". 

Useful use of f2f time is also "presenting brand new work" - but only once - to gain traction and such in order to take it onto the list.

That said, IETF meetings do punctuate and foster some "sprints to finish things before a deadline", and so an overview of status probably is appreciated. I believe that this (in some WGs) is very well done by the WG chairs in their "WG Status" slot - but, even better, actually announced on the list in advance (on that note, I want to tip my hat to the ROLL WG chairs here: Ines and Michael have whipped their WG to submitting slides already, constructed a complete deck for the whole meeting, and prepared a handful or so of slides listing the "status": active documents, open issues, related, for the beginning - close to perfect organisation ...).

One other thing that I occasionally find useful to spend F2F time on: summarising out-of-band discussions such as what often happens through IESG reviews, especially if managing to get the AD in question to show up and argue her/his points.

Best,

Thomas

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:39:15 -0800

> suggestion and about the comment about background.

If you or I had made the suggestion, would that affect its merit?  We 
have extensive IETF meeting experience, but that's irrelevant.

If it's a good suggestion, it doesn't matter who made it.

If it's a bad suggestion, it doesn't matter who made it.

By publicly asking about the background of the person making the 
suggestion, the public exchange moves from the merits of the suggestion 
to the merits of the person making the suggestion.

Moving focus off of the substance and to the speaker is the essence of 
ad hominem.  It either explicitly or implicitly is asserting that the 
nature of the speaker affects the merit of what is spoken, with the 
usual implication that the speaker and their suggestion should be 
discounted.

> hominem attack.

So it isn't ad hominem unless it is a direct, frontal and coarse 
assertion of the false factor?  If it is only implied, it doesn't count?

>        the question about
> nutrition and related fields,

You are confusing substance with person.

The question that was asked was not "what is the basis for the 
recommendation" but "what is your experience with our meetings".  The 
former is substance and reasonable.  The latter is personal and not.

And this was done in public as an immediate response and without any 
other context.

We make this confusion quite a lot in the IETF.

d/

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:49:31 +0100

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 24, 2014, at 15:13, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and even if it weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of response.  It doesn't matter what the background is of the person asking the question.
> 
> The usual focus in IETF discussions about meeting management is, instead, about /how/ time is used, rather than how much of it, notably pressing to avoid tutorial or reportorial content, instead focusing on discussion of pending items, such as those creating an impasse.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker

Dave,

While I agree mostly on the line of your response I think that it was not a "question" but formulated as an "advise" and coming from someone that we all know have not planned any wg agendas. Of course this does not disqualify him, but if he is at odds with experienced people we should take such advice with more than a spoonful of salt (is that an English proverb). 

/Loa

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:52:38 -0800

> While I agree mostly on the line of your response I think that it was not a "question" but formulated as an "advise" and coming from someone that we all know have not planned any wg agendas. Of cou…

Then the note should have been sent privately.

d/

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:21:05 -0900

> to the merits of the person making the suggestion.

I think it matters a lot whether or not someone has first-hand
knowledge of whether or not something they're proposing actually
works in practice.  Or at least it does in general - in this
case we've got a pretty good handle on AB's IETF experience and
the question was unnecessary.

At any rate IETF meetings are working meetings.  They are not
conferences.  AB is hardly alone in his confusion about this.

Melinda

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:02:54 +0100

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 24, 2014, at 17:52, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Or even better - not at all !

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:48:25 -0600

At 12:49 AM 2/24/2014, [email-masked] wrote:
> present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as 
> limit policy).

further, what if there are only two IDs active in a WG and the chairs 
were given an hour or two hour slot because there are LOTS of open 
questions that do not seem to be getting resolved on the mailing list 
even though there have been a fair amount of discussion on both 
drafts on the list? Would you still recommend only 30 minutes of 
total meeting time? Seems like it, or do you give the chairs the 
discretion to allocate time as they see fit?

James
(been a chair for 9 years)

>I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present 
>per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit 
>policy). We need to use more input and have more face2face (F2F) 
>discussion in our meeting. I remember we discussed this before but 
>it will be nice if we know what chairs are thinking before few days 
>of the meeting.
>
>describe issues of draft in 10 minutes then it will be difficult for 
>the WG listeners to discuss and make decisions within another 10 
>minutes per item. Please comment.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Abdussalam
>
>WG Meetings are needed for group interactions and group decisions 
>not individual presentations or individual decisions.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:37:13 -0500

Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid ad-hominem
argument?

Almost everyone who raises it gets it wrong.

Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid argument against claims of fact when made
against the authority making the claim. "PT Barnum is a notorious liar' is
a perfectly valid argument against a claim PT Barnum is making about having
found a mermaid.

Ad hominem is not a valid argument against a conclusion drawn from agreed
facts. So if I say 'that must be a bad idea because Dave Crocker supports
it' then I am making an invalid adhominem argument.

But even here, ad hominem can be valid if in the case that it is excluding
the last authority. For example, if we are discussing the situation in
Ukraine and John McBain suggests an immediate US invasion then it is a
perfectly valid argument to state that 'McBain is the only person making
that proposal, McBain always suggests starting a war, the proposal is
ridiculous and is not worth the time to consider'.

The question at issue here is not merely the conclusion but the implied
statement of the facts.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you or I had made the suggestion, would that affect its merit?  We have
> extensive IETF meeting experience, but that's irrelevant.
>
> suggestion, the public exchange moves from the merits of the suggestion to
> the merits of the person making the suggestion.
>
> Moving focus off of the substance and to the speaker is the essence of ad
> hominem.  It either explicitly or implicitly is asserting that the nature
> of the speaker affects the merit of what is spoken, with the usual
> implication that the speaker and their suggestion should be discounted.
>
>
>
> So it isn't ad hominem unless it is a direct, frontal and coarse assertion
> of the false factor?  If it is only implied, it doesn't count?
>
>
>
>         the question about
> And this was done in public as an immediate response and without any other
> context.
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:14:58 -0500

> Could we have an RFC to explain what is and what is not a valid ad-hominem

There are no valid _ad hominem_ arguments.  _Ad hominem_ is a short
name of a fallacious form or reasoning where one attacks the person
making the argument _instead of_ attacking the argument as such.
(More fully, of course, it's known as _argumentum ad hominem_.)

> a perfectly valid argument against a claim PT Barnum is making about having

I think this is only sort of true.  When Barnum is making his
argument, he's offering testimony ("I found a mermaid").  In this
case, pointing out that Barnum is a notorious liar is an attack on the
testimony.  It's therefore not an _ad hominem_ because you're not
attacking the person speaking, but arguing about the premises of
Barnum's original argument from testimony.  Even there, it'd be a
pretty weak argument, until you added, "Also, there are no previous
known cases of mermaids, and PT Barnum has refused to allow anyone
else to examine the alleged mermaid."  Otherwise, you could as easily
use the premise "Barnum is a notorious liar" when Barnum says, "A
contradiction cannot be true."  

The primary consideration is always relevance to the argument at hand.
That's why _ad hominem_ is usually classified as a fallacy of
relevance.  It's also why I prefer to avoid the term _ad hominem_ in
favour of pointing out why something is irrelevant to the argument at
hand.

> The question at issue here is not merely the conclusion but the implied

I disagree.  The question is whether the argument against a given
position is relevant to the truth or falisty of that position (or its
supporting premises).  In the case of an _ad hominem_, the irrelevance
lies with attending to the speaker instead of that which is spoken.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:41:02 -0500

> (More fully, of course, it's known as _argumentum ad hominem_.)

My point is that since it seems that almost nobody who asserts ad hominem
gets it right people should instead say 'thats rude' or 'thats
exclusionary'. It is of course perfectly valid from a logical point of view
to ask what the experience of someone is before they make organizational
proposals but it is still bloody rude.

As my old headmaster (an alum of Bletchley Park) used to say Latin
argumentum semper in fraudes.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:42:25 +0100

Hi Adrian,

> of an I-D" or "limit the time spent on an I-D".

Yes, I am worried about discussing first presented I-Ds among participants
in the meeting and it takes time of other later presented I-Ds.

 It happens that about 8 I-Ds are discussed within about 2 hours. So I
mostly mean time spent on an I-D while the control of the slot is handed to
who has booked the time and then thinking to limit time of presentation
only if the WG want more explanation to be continued.

Thanks for your comments,

AB

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 22:43:04 +0000

On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think this is only sort of true. 

I think the context is relevant here. In a court of law, discrediting a witness is, as you note, a counter-argument to the train of argument being made by the side s/he is a witness for. In the book/movie "the girl who kicked the hornet's nest", Lisbet is brought up on charges that are not only untrue but are in fact an ad hominem on charges she is bringing. She demonstrates the factuality of her statements from records, and demonstrates that her opponents cannot do the same, and in fact have criminal reasons to have her viewpoint suppressed. Yes, she demonstrates that one is a pornographer and another is a murderer, and 12 people are taken into custody as a result of her testimony and pre-trial activities. While it is an attack on a person, it is demonstrating criminal intent and behavior.

In an IETF meeting, we are not discussing criminal matters; we are discussing ideas. Even if the party proposing an idea were a criminal, his or her criminal nature would be irrelevant to the idea - it might or might not be a good one. 

So from my perspective, I would agree with your opening statement. Ad Hominum arguments have no place in our process.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:31:57 +0000

This ongoing discussion of what constitutes an ad hominem argument is all very well,
but I'd like to point out that I didn't make an ad hominem argument or assertion.

I simply asked a question.

On another note, Fred, perhaps I'm in the minority here for not having yet read the novels
you refer to, or watched any film adaptations. But if the best argument you can think
of is based on fiction (which is to say, argumentum ad exemplum, quoting a sermon to
support a moral point) and giving away the plot, do at least have the courtesy to prefix
it with a warning saying SPOILER ALERT.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) [[email-masked]]
Sent: 24 February 2014 22:43
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:39:04 -0800

> I simply asked a question.

The form of your note was not the issue.  It was the substance.  The 
substance was directed at a person and was /about/ that person.  It's 
the 'about' that made it ad hominem.

By way of example...

If I responded to your note by "just asking a question" such as:

    So, Lloyd, did you ever go to school?

or

    Didn't your school ever teach you about semantics?

or

    Lloyd, where did you learn your group participation skills?

I'd simply be asking a question.

But I'd also be making a pointed ad hominem attack and no reader will 
miss that fact.

By contrast, if I sent a note that only contained the above first 
paragraph, I'd be focusing on the substance of the issue and would not 
be asking or commenting about you as a person.  (Yes, my first paragraph 
has the word "your" in it.  The presence of the word doesn't make the 
text ad hominem.  The semantics either do or don't.  First paragraph: 
doesn't.  Later questions: do.

d/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:49:43 +0000

>      Lloyd, where did you learn your group participation skills?

The IETF!

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Dave Crocker [[email-masked]]
Sent: 25 February 2014 05:39
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ad hominems

By way of example...

or

or

d/

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:10:45 +0000

I suggest we use this as the new Note Well.

Lars

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:14:27 +0800

thou shalt not ruin a perfectly good bar fight by introducing logic,
clarity of argument, or fact.

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:59:28 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:14 PM
> (More fully, of course, it's known as _argumentum ad hominem_.)

Yes, clearly, but what then is the plural, when you have more than one
ad hominem, against the same or different people? argumenta ad hominem,
which is then abbreviated to ad hominem?

Tom Petch

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:35:00 +0100

> I simply asked a question.
IMHO, you did do an ad hominem argument many times on IETF lists and I
reported to IETF Chair and to another AD, before months about that, but
still you continue and I cannot fix that situation if majority like that or
if ADs cannot fix it.

AB

---

From: Pat Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:41:34 +0000

I'm not an IETF WG Chair, but I have attended IETF meetings for some time and have many years of experience chairing in other organizations.

A significant part of the job of a chair is facilitating sound progress of chartered work. Issues that haven't been resolved on the list may be complex ones that take more than 10 minutes to understand and get to the heart of differing viewpoints.  It is often more efficient to devote more meeting time to getting such issues sorted rather than to distribute meeting time evenly across drafts.

Also, when a group has multiple drafts/projects to progress, it is often more efficient for the group to concentrate on drafts that are foundational (i.e. that need to be settled so that other work items can progress) or that are close to done in order to finish those and be able to concentrate future efforts on the remaining items.

An even arbitrary distribution of time doesn't serve those purposes.

Pat

From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:43 PM
To: ietf
Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions

Dear IETF WGs' Chairs,

Best wishes,

Abdussalam