Re: 10 a.m.

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 11 July 2016 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB49312D621 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PW0kqT0W_7pw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2BD12D0DA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6082CC9A; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:07:11 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T3eHyeOMonTE; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:07:11 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE4E2CC45; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:07:11 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2B942863-18DE-47BA-B734-F93F3665F493"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:07:08 +0200
Message-Id: <86428765-1C82-4434-B6DA-89E34DB599E2@piuha.net>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <41f9104e-335f-b2a9-3ca8-9d5b0e7de3b6@gmail.com> <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2IzwIG6NJs8nef1cUa7YK-9auNQ>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:07:14 -0000

John,

> If we really
> have potential surplus meeting hours, is it time to reconsider
> the Friday decision, trying to use possible meeting slots
> (including time recovered by reducing the number of plenaries)
> efficiently enough to return to a four-day schedule?

Lets talk about the concept of surplus hours, and constraints around that.

The experiment in Buenos Aires and now in Berlin is to move the meeting one hour later, but not to change the length of the meeting. This may or may not work well, depending on whether you tend to stay up late and wake up late, local restaurant schedules vs break and dinner times, etc.

But it doesn’t change the amount of meeting time, so no time wasted/gained as such.

However, there’s clearly a tradeoff between having longer days vs. longer week. Although, of course, there’s some human limits on how long people in practice can go on (+ the design team dinners, directorate breakfasts, and such).

And there’s another tradeoff between more compressed WG time vs. length of the overall meeting time.

I have some personal opinions about these things, but ultimately, what does the community want to do?

Jari