Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

John C Klensin <> Wed, 16 May 2018 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079EA126BF0; Wed, 16 May 2018 09:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkiPM_IS458A; Wed, 16 May 2018 09:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8743E124207; Wed, 16 May 2018 09:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=JcK-T100) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1fIzcW-0004DB-6z; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:49:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:49:39 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Stewart Bryant <>
cc:, IETF Chair <>, ietf <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
Message-ID: <A299772BE5B81D3F99BCCCE9@[]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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: Wed, 16 May 2018 16:49:49 -0000

--On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 13:29 +0100 Stewart Bryant
<> wrote:

> I am probably alone in thinking that the Hackathon is
> suplimentary to the main purpose of the meeting, and thus
> don't much care when they are held, but perhaps we could move
> them to the Friday/Saturday after the standards sessions so
> people fatigued for the WG sessions. Those slots could then
> double as a sort of forml-informal time for extended WG
> discussions.

You are not alone.  One of my concerns, which parallels your
comments, is that the more Hackathons and convention-like
activities (including tutorials, time for essentially
unconstrained informal gatherings, exhibition areas, etc.), come
to be considered and seen as important in 
laying out the schedule, the more likely we will see evaluations
and decisions shift as to who gets support for attendance at
IETF meetings and how much work people have to do to justify
that support.  Those are long-term concerns, not anything likely
to affect us after one or two meetings, but, if we do things
that cause people who have to authorize expenditures to start
asking whether they are being asked to support a technical
standards meeting or a party (social, hacking, or otherwise) for
people with Internet technology interests, we had best be
careful what we wish for.

Also, for those who are concerned that eliminating Friday
meeting times (formal or informal) will have a slippery slope
effect, it may be helpful to remember that IETF meetings were,
for many years, four day events ending with the last Thursday
afternoon session.   Yes, some of who could do so (airline
schedules permitting) left on late Thursday flights and
red-eyes.  Many others took the first available flight out
Friday, often in the hope of being home before the weekend.  But
there was no exodus starting, e.g., Thursday noon.