Re: [113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 28/03/2022 14:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > I would though encourage the IESG to be more radical with the f2f
>      > agenda time than was the case for 113. My particular
>      > suggestion/hobby-horse would be to run the hackathon Mon-Thu in the
>      > mornings and WG sessions/plenary/other things in the afternoons. As
>      > others have said, we could also encourage use of online interims for
> 
> It's an interesting suggestion, and I think we should try it somehow.
> It may be too radical a change for some.

Fair point. And it'd have to be done in some way so as to
avoid big new costs (e.g. for re-arranging rooms). OTOH, if
there're only small numbers in the WG sessions maybe keeping
round-table setups would work all week.

Again though, even if that particular suggestion isn't tried,
I suspect being more radical than 113 is going to be needed
if we're gonna end up succeeding with the hybrid meetings
that are inevitable for the coming years. (As someone else
said, climate change alone is likely to be sufficient to
force that.)

> (As a fellow morning-hater, I would personally find that order a problem.
> I hack better in the evening, and sessions are a good motivation to wake up)

Wait, what? Isn't the IETF meeting agenda supposed to be
designed around me? :-)

Cheers,
S.

> 
> I wrote that we should have far fewer sessions during f2f time in my
> "many-fine-dinners" draft, which was not I think, well received by SHMOO.
> 
>