Re: [93attendees] Meeting schedule

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 12:37 AM +0200 7/22/15, Jari Arkko wrote:

>  We've discussed the plenaries in the IESG/IAB Sunday meeting, and 
> are considering a joint,
>  shorter (s2.5h) 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.

I think it's worth a try.

>  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.

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).

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
[To have] butter on your head: Hungarian expression meaning guilty
of something.