Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week

I consider the experiment a failure btw.

> On Nov 9, 2021, at 12:49 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Alex,
> 
> This was announced on September 2 "Proposed Experiment for IETF 112: Moving the Plenary”.
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/z3FZnHmcuxDevC4BkmoY8I89yPk/
> 
> I didn’t attend.

I did not either, it did not consult this list (for example).

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/planning/clash-list/

There’s some other issues that happened around the meeting as well which cause me to have this opinion.

- Jared

> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> On Nov 9, 2021, at 9:43 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> I missed the Plenary last week, because I didnt expect it there.
>> 
>> This time IETF meeting is so strange.  It spans two weeks time with importnat things in the first week, including the Plenary, but the WG meetings are in the second week.
>> 
>> All these discussions we had in shmoo WG about online or not online and I did not see any sign about Plenary being in the first week.
>> 
>> All these discussions about which 3-4 time slots are best around the world, which UTC ways to refer to them, etc, and I missed the Plenary.
>> 
>> Sigh...
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 112attendees mailing list
>> 112attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees
> 
> -- 
> 112attendees mailing list
> 112attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees

Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed