Draft: RIPE 89 Programme Committee Meeting

Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2024

Present:

PC Chair: Massimiliano Stucchi

PC Members: Doris Hauser, Franziska Lichtblau, Kevin Meynell, Brian Nisbet, Antonio Prado, Moin Rahman, Wolfgang Tremmel, Clara Wade, Jan Žorž

RIPE Chair Team: Mirjam Kühne

RIPE NCC staff: Jelena Ćosić, Hisham Ibrahim, Phillip Oldham, Gergana Petrova, Marita Phelan

Minutes: Kjerstin Burdiek

1. Feedback from RIPE 89

The PC discussed feedback about the meeting. There had been praise for the venue and the branding materials there, as well as for the programme overall. One suggestion had been to increase the legibility of names on the meeting badges with a larger font size and dyslexia-friendly font, and also to offer more ways to customise badges for different roles. There were some other small issues, like the limited food options for different dietary needs, spotty Wi-Fi and malfunctioning elevators. And the meeting agenda could have been shared more widely, such as by having the day’s sessions on the screens at the venue instead of more branding content.

The PC discussed the Diversity in Tech session and considered whether it would work better as a session in the main programme, and concluded to keep it where it was. The PC also considered the room layout for sessions. It would be good to have more aisles since people preferred to sit at the ends of rows, but this would result in fewer chairs.

Gergana shared that on the side of the meeting team at the RIPE NCC, organising RIPE 89 had gone smoothly, and they were finally catching up to schedule after the pandemic had interrupted planning. However, current geopolitical tensions had made it difficult for attendees of some countries to travel by plane or attain visas.

The PC also expressed some concerns about the venue for RIPE 90, which was relatively expensive even at the discounted meeting rate. Gergana said this was a very nice hotel, so they could not go any cheaper. Also, there were other hotels in the neighbourhood. Attendees often preferred the higher-quality hotels even if they were more expensive. It was noted that more advance planning could lead to cheaper rates in the future, however.

2. Supporting Newcomers and Presenters

The PC discussed ways to integrate newcomers more effectively at RIPE Meetings. One suggestion was putting more emphasis on mentorship, including possibly making it a default option at registration. The PC could remind newcomers more frequently about the mentorship programme and events like the newcomers’ reception. To encourage newcomers to return, they could also reach out to newcomers more after the meeting. And they could push senior members of the community to put more effort into welcoming newcomers into their circles.

Another suggestion was to set up tables with suggested topics, or continuing discussions from presentations, to promote conversations among attendees who did not know each other, and not just among newcomers. There could also be quieter spaces at social events for attendees to interact.

Another concern was how to help new presenters. Presentation slides that were submitted to the PC did not always accurately show a presenter’s skills. This could be addressed by offering an (online) training course on this, as was done in the past. However, people who needed the training might not choose to take it. The PC decided they could include presentation advice on the meeting website. It was also suggested to do away with laser pointers for presenters, as the lasers did not show up on video and led to presenters turning their backs to the audience to look at the screens.

Another topic discussed was how to properly review presentation slides, as presenters often made last-minute updates. One suggestion was to have an earlier cut-off for changes. The PC also reviewed the effectiveness of shepherding certain presentations.

3. New Presentation Submission System

Phillip shared that the new presentation submission system would be available alongside the old version for RIPE 90 so that the PC could test it out. RIPE 91 would then be fully on the new system. The PC would have access to test the new system by the end of November. He encouraged PC members to share their feedback or let the RIPE NCC know about any issues with the system.

Franziska asked if the PC members could write down their desired features and if Phillip could suggest any useful new features they had missed. Phillip suggested having a call with the PC to go over this, to which the PC members agreed.

4. RACI Submissions

Massimiliano suggested that the PC could be given access to see all RACI submissions so they could help select the talks. However, it was noted that there would not be a lot of time to review the submissions between the RACI deadline and the deadline for the meeting programme. There were also a lot of submissions, and some PC members said it would be better to leave it up to the RACI reviewing team to select the best ones instead of the PC having to spend time on this. The current number of entries would likely be the maximum they could accept in any case. The PC therefore decided to leave the process as it was.

5. AOB

The PC discussed how to review presentation proposals with input from the Working Group chairs. They decided it would be good for the chairs to be able to see the submissions and help filter them, as this would also help with planning the working groups’ agendas. Phillip said this would be possible to implement in the new system. It was also suggested to make it clearer for presenters submitting proposals in the system whether they were submitting for a plenary or for a Working Group session.

The PC also discussed the starting time for Friday at RIPE 89. The programme was set to begin that day at 09:30, the same as at RIPE 88. They considered the pros and cons of losing a half hour of meeting time, but as this slot was unpopular with speakers, the PC decided to keep the later start on Friday for this meeting.