DRAFT: RIPE 92 Programme Committee Meeting

Date: Wednesday, 20 May

Present:

PC Chair: Massimiliano Stucchi

PC Members: Annika Hannig, Babak Farrohki, Brian Nisbet, Clara Wade, Kevin Meynell, Linda Shannon, Matt Parker, Osama Al-Dosary, Jan Žorž

RIPE Chair Team: Anna Wilson, Mirjam Kühne

RIPE NCC staff: Hafsa Boueddine, Jelena Ćosić, Kajal Ince, Marita Phelan, Ulka Athale

Minutes: Kjerstin Burdiek

1. Feedback from RIPE 92

The PC shared feedback they had received during RIPE 92. There was praise for the venue, as it was very spacious and offered plenty of workspace. However, the large size meant some areas like the sponsor lounge had felt a bit remote. The opening plenary and BoFs had received positive feedback, as well as the tutorial on presentation skills. The PC noted that the latter could be pushed even more in the future to help presenters. The socials were mostly viewed positively as well, although with some criticism about the lack of quiet spaces. Overall, attendance at the meeting was very high and there was good engagement, including at local hubs.

The PC then discussed some presentations that had received mixed feedback. One issue was that some presenters did not seem adequately prepared to present for the RIPE audience. Some simply did not know the logistics and were not signed up on time properly. This had happened for certain last-minute Lightning Talks, and the PC noted that they would continue to plan later Lightning Talk submissions for the Friday slot to avoid this. They would also try to make decisions earlier for submissions from newcomers who were not used to this format. Other talks had been controversial due to the content and did not seem targeted at the primarily technical community. The PC discussed how they could do a better job here of preparing these speakers. As they also worked with the local host on procuring some submissions, they could give more guidance to the host and sponsors about what was appropriate for this type of meeting. Other notes for improvement were whether certain early sessions were too technical and not as welcoming to newcomers. The PC considered whether it would be possible to include some entry-level presentations for newcomers.

Lastly, the PC discussed some logistical matters. The PC considered adding more automation to the Pretalx email templates, though without losing the personalisation. Some speakers had failed to register for the meeting, so this could be mentioned in the email template as well. And there had been some confusion about chat monitors, which the RIPE NCC now only provided when requested, but this needed to be communicated better to session chairs. The PC also discussed how session chairs could manage the Q&A queue a little better due to some questions going on too long.

2. Division of Labour

The PC discussed how best to divide up tasks amongst the team. There had been some lack of clarity about who was responsible in certain scenarios, such as replying on behalf of the PC in the mailing list. Some suggested divvying up certain tasks, like shepherding accepted talks or communicating with those who had submitted a talk that was rejected. This could be done in pairs. The PC agreed that they were missing a document clearly covering the different roles and tasks for the team, as the wiki that had previously covered this was no longer available. They decided to produce such a document. It was noted that overall communications needs to improve: among the PC members, to RIPE NCC staff, to submitters and to the speakers.

ACTION Matt and Osama to draft a document defining roles within the PC.

3. Lowering the Barrier to Submission for Newcomers

Linda, representing the local host, shared her perspective on how the meeting came across to newcomers. She felt the Call for Presentations might be challenging for newcomers due to undefined terms like BoF or Working Group. These terms could be better explained, and the tone could be more inviting. She also thought the expectation to provide slides might be a barrier for some and that an abstract could suffice. The PC discussed this, and several members noted that full slides were not expected, only a skeleton. They said this made it a lot easier for the PC to understand the presentation, especially when the presenter was a newcomer they were not familiar with. Several PC members said there could be problems in not requiring slides, as people often deviated heavily from their abstracts or used AI, but presenters could request help with their slides from the PC. On getting local talks, the PC suggested the RIPE NCC could assist with helping to find these presenters, and the local host could do the same. One challenge was in getting junior presenters, as companies often did not fund them to travel to conferences. The PC considered whether the RIPE NCC could help here and if PC members could encourage companies to send more junior staff, possibly alongside senior staff.

4. Lightning Talks

The PC discussed how lately Lightning Talks were often much longer than intended for the format. While session chairs should monitor this, it seemed some were not being strict enough. Talks that ran over due to high engagement could potentially be discussed further elsewhere. The PC put forward some solutions. They agreed that they needed to help empower session chairs to set the right tone and stop a speaker if needed. They could also better enforce having audience members state their affiliation when asking a question. Finally, they could tell presenters to plan time for questions within their time slot.

5. AOB

Max and the rest of the PC members thanked Kevin for his time on the PC, as his term was ending.