Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 18 April 2017 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18B81314D4 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJu9dox70BX7 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43361314D3 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 63so3293093pgh.0 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=F+poz8t1IEV0jR8le7OF7UI+OBBc8CwjdeIEBpaoipA=; b=mF8CZ9OkhAXXr6F0fuBrlluz0aVNmzipioPE8sda02/ecCwlPbkhdpcNFfK4GrMyBM RHQIMbKCIKCF9e4/4E80zaLMvKIICnFDpSoih0KhEnilXudKwF2mB8fAeO/RCW11Qdkg XpCCdNU4+2hvZihaR6SKC90VUvf+lbCRWaSsMU7VJ95SfjnYlPnFmn7qyWmQUDC+ovEa BJwXpSjtmB74tmeZWDm6bmRImqWbexVNXiB15u7i+0BD26RU1iwPlxV+CefeFL6yhh31 IjvtLmifZKu3d/fY6t7BKJfjxqmDCeRwG5aaRgiDtQR9fS+I1TF5/F37zIwGy+hQYqUX B+Nw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=F+poz8t1IEV0jR8le7OF7UI+OBBc8CwjdeIEBpaoipA=; b=WD3Ubqc8ALciLrJRJoB9r8H/kDDmWXtfE1j1SjQb6O0ehnDnJOjJ98IzxaU3GHxo2Q oupAI6j4Zd8+lxiXRkkMxqRURv5J9rJ9tk6XfIYTE6tAsBg5hpcGvno2EzA22CEpwJUy 5b16Dxsi9eyn9q3DKkv4UlroPb//D+LSJbhFrjxCBf2SyWE/crKjXTosfA2Ne6DZLpJt i+Xdj97B+AJl2Ss4FNaUdX+OXq2rQEWPMGD6Xlbkrlwm8uxLJcxYN3vOWmGroCEtejwv L51Wfp3ZFKzrfhzMXmAjjtcJL7IlXIjVvVBNv3ZgWAoJ6gijwx/5BBU7iC5K0Vl2SO+P RAJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7h6ssfO9o4VD7GkUEWDgI/INpnRNwgkGALgKV54HA6HI8XmhVd UT1n6iBxJR1z2Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r1mr20097993pge.37.1492555389373; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:5724:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:5724:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id p11sm463825pfl.4.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Structure of IETF meeting weeks
To: Stephen Farrell <>, Toerless Eckert <>, Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <> <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:43:09 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:43:11 -0000

On 19/04/2017 09:34, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 18/04/17 22:22, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> For example, there is a lot of death by powerpoint in meetings that pushes off
>> high bandwidth discussions ("oh, we're out of time"). AFAIK, most active work
>> on drafts during IETF meeting week happens outside of the WG meetings.

It's true. And that is *exactly* the problem with meetings where a large fraction
or even a majority of attendees are remote. They are automatically excluded from
that informal active work. So, be careful what you wish for.

>> I think that
>> a) was not the original plan, and b) i have not seen IAOC sending around questionaires
>> what/how to improve the quality of the meetings in this respect.
> I agree with the criticism, but not sure I agree about surveys being
> the best next step.
> One suggestion I made before I exited the IESG was that we consider
> changing (or experimenting with) how the meeting week is structured,
> for example, only having formal WG sessions in the afternoons, and
> leaving the full mornings free for hackathons or informal meetings.
> (Partly, that's because I hate getting out of bed early, which sadly
> was not considered sufficient justification:-)

Exactly why it should be the other way round: meetings start at 09:00
sharp, and informal sessions after 14:00.  People are deadline driven...
> Anyway, I think it'd be good if the IESG/IAOC encouraged experiments
> in such ways of organising ourselves when loads of us do end up in
> one place for a week or so.

Certainly, nudging everybody away from "I came to the IETF to make my
presentation" would be a Good Thing.