Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Toerless in that if there was a failure in the experiment, it
was of execution rather than concept. I like that the earlier plenary
provides more time for WG sessions (or fewer conflicts) during IETF week,
given that the days are shorter when IETF meetings are virtual. I assume
that once we're back to in-person meetings, the plenary will go back to the
late afternoon/early evening.

Cheers,
Andy



On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 2:10 PM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I don't think that a clash was overlooked is showing a failure of the
> experiment.
> It is a failure of execution, but having the plenary and HotRFC in the week
> in before the other meetings might still be useful. Maybe one can think of
> that
> week becoming something like the "free IETF week" to also attract more
> newcomers
> before they decide they want to do real work.
>
> Whether we will be able to avoid future conflicts if we want to go to such
> 2 full
> weeks is of course a different question. Makes it more difficult i fear.
>
> Toerless
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 06:57:32PM +0000, Borchert, Oliver (Fed) wrote:
> > +1, I agree with Jared,
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > On 11/9/21, 1:33 PM, "112attendees on behalf of Jared Mauch" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >     I consider the experiment a failure btw.
> >
> >     > On Nov 9, 2021, at 12:49 PM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Alex,
> >     >
> >     > This was announced on September 2 "Proposed Experiment for IETF
> 112: Moving the Plenary”.
> >     >
> >     >
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fz3FZnHmcuxDevC4BkmoY8I89yPk%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7C0eabbeb3ce2a4c250c5e08d9a3af6247%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C637720795959633881%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=JFyiLn9E0wOVWIkI0rOJwVp%2FKqf9gs1%2FRPymcqL30O4%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >     >
> >     > I didn’t attend.
> >
> >     I did not either, it did not consult this list (for example).
> >
> >
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fhow%2Fmeetings%2Fplanning%2Fclash-list%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7C0eabbeb3ce2a4c250c5e08d9a3af6247%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C637720795959633881%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=qVlWnq3%2BwRTKlbW24%2FbkkxUWnzYXW87zpmfDLq%2BLnpw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> >     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 <
> [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.
> >     >>
> >     >> 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]
> >     >>
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F112attendees&amp;data=04%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7C0eabbeb3ce2a4c250c5e08d9a3af6247%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C637720795959633881%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=l%2BbQYto1MvthnyJUexpL%2FwWLkdA1WvVlXlNBXFgMMXw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > 112attendees mailing list
> >     > [e-mail]
> >     >
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F112attendees&amp;data=04%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7C0eabbeb3ce2a4c250c5e08d9a3af6247%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C637720795959633881%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=l%2BbQYto1MvthnyJUexpL%2FwWLkdA1WvVlXlNBXFgMMXw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> >     --
> >     112attendees mailing list
> >     [e-mail]
> >
> https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F112attendees&amp;data=04%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7C0eabbeb3ce2a4c250c5e08d9a3af6247%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C637720795959633881%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=l%2BbQYto1MvthnyJUexpL%2FwWLkdA1WvVlXlNBXFgMMXw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> > --
> > 112attendees mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees
>
> --
> ---
> [e-mail]
>
> --
> 112attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/112attendees
>