Re: [93attendees] Meeting schedule

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 22, 2015, at 5:32 AM, Randall Gellens <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I wonder if it might be possible to try and tweak this by:
> 
>  - Having most slots be shorter (e.g., 60 minutes)
>  - When WG chairs request slot(s), ask them to rate how critical f2f time is
>    o f2f time vital for making progress on x drafts
>    o f2f time useful for making progress in WG generally
>    o f2f time potentially useful
> 
> When scheduling is done, give priority to "vital" WG slots (some groups might not get a slot).

This is a great suggestion.   In addition, I would suggest:

Having a single slot per day that’s for cross-area advertising, takes a half hour, is not area-specific, and is short.   You get two minutes for an elevator pitch, and it’s about a document that would be discussed somewhere that day.   Competition for slots would be based on the amount and level of actual work that has occurred on that document since the previous IETF, plus the AD’s and chairs’ impression of how important cross-area review is.   No Q&A, and if you run to the end of your slot, your microphone gets cut and the next presenter’s microphone gets turned on.   In some cases it might make sense for someone who is not a document author to do a talk on a document because they are concerned about some issue in the document and want to raise awareness about it.

This is probably not correct as proposed, but trying it as proposed would help us to understand what would be correct.

Another suggestion: keep some slots open, so that when a discussion in one of the short slots turns out to be productive, an additional slot can be forked later in the week to continue it.  A bit of a risk that people would skip the last day if we did this, but people who want to get work done might not.