Re: [93attendees] Meeting schedule

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for an interesting discussion. FWIW, I think the IESG / IAOC are looking at these
discussions so maybe we can just have it on this list.

First, I wanted to highlight that this week’s schedule wrt the morning plenaries is an experiment.
The lunch break allows the room setup conversion to take place without disturbing our meeting
time.

We’ve discussed the plenaries in the IESG/IAB Sunday meeting, and are considering a joint,
shorter (¨2.5h) plenary for IETF-94. This would further compress the time that we use for
reporting, but should still allow a brief(er) technical topic to be discussed and some amount
of time for asking questions from the leadership boards. The saved time could be used
for working group meetings, breaks for those important side discussions or that important
rest. This is like we had it some years ago, but it would be an experiment to see how it
works in today’s IETF.

Thoughts?

Also, we are very acutely aware of the tradeoffs between adequate rest in an intense week,
time for the WGs to do their interesting work, time for the unofficial and unscheduled discussions
to happen, and the constraints on lengthening the week. We have always tried to balance
these, and feedback on where we are with that is very much appreciated.

Part of the reason that we have such an intense meeting this time is that there are
so many working groups and that people find interesting work to do. I think that’s
good. It is also a good thing that many of the most active WGs are using virtual
interim meetings to progress their work.

There are no magic solutions to offer more time; don’t think we can extend the week.
We’ll just have to do even more between meetings, use time even smarter in the
meetings, and use more parallelism.

Jari