Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

A person in high(est) leadership role said:
> fully online meetings have a shorter length of day, which complicates
> scheduling sessions to minimize conflicts,

I do not know whether one knows the travelling salesperson problem? 
Maybe quantum calculus in IRTF QIRG might solve it efficiently.  But 
until then, there are numerous ways to solve any such problem, including 
scheduling sessions.

Some ways are like this: one can state solutions to it, other can state 
solutions to it in a smart way.  But whatever seems smart for one now, 
may seem less smart (be outsmart) by someone else tomorrow.

One way out of that problem is to come up with a sort of consensus.

Consensus building might take more time than we have between 3 meetings 
a year,  which is also true.

Le 10/11/2021 à 15:28, Mirja Kuehlewind a écrit :
> The intended goals for this experiment is to have more time for other 
> sessions during the meeting week and therefore hopefully less conflicts, 

I agree it is a good goal: more time for more sessions and less conflicts.

There are a few ways out of this.  Some were mentioned in the shmoo WG 
discussions, but there was nowhere of a feeling of trying to get 
consensus around any one of the solutions.

The discussion was there - yes, but the conclusions were elsewhere.

> which I believe was clearly stated in the mail that announced the 
> proposed experiment here:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/z3FZnHmcuxDevC4BkmoY8I89yPk/ 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/z3FZnHmcuxDevC4BkmoY8I89yPk/>

YEs, the announcement is there.

I do not say that the announcement was not public, or that was hidden.

Alex

> 
> *From: *112attendees <[e-mail]> on behalf of Behcet 
> Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
> *Reply to: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 10. November 2021 at 15:25
> *To: *Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed
> 
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 11:43 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
> 
> I think if we had the Plenary at the regular time (Wed. of IETF week) it 
> would have been too late at night for EU.
> 
> I think that was the main reason.
> 
> Behcet
> 
>     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
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees>
>