Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sun, 13 May 2018 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.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 BA48E124217; Sun, 13 May 2018 09:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ao_0LFHqSPV5; Sun, 13 May 2018 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73BCD1201F8; Sun, 13 May 2018 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.108.149] (107-137-170-100.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [107.137.170.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25C775403F7; Sun, 13 May 2018 12:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1F9B1FDF-D0AC-4422-AC69-9194CF2CBA9F
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15E302)
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 12:20:04 -0400
Cc: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <577716BD-52D3-42BF-9701-5F6876771660@puck.nether.net>
References: <3678CC52-1F1B-4B17-8654-E75C9B63AD39@ietf.org> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4wggMIZjMSXCISCLSiRZq9NYzwo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 13 May 2018 16:20:20 -0000

I appreciate trying to keep the agenda in check. When trying to balance family life and IETF activities plus natural airline schedules it’s often hard to stay on Fridays. Often when we are in Europe the last flights to the US are at times that don’t allow attendance unless one stays until Saturday. Removing this risk will make it more productive in the 4 days. 

Trying to make IEPG through Friday noon sessions often leaves no time to catch a flight or arrive just in time. 

I would be supportive of adjusting this based on common departure times in the region, such as Asia there are afternoon flights to reach common destinations. Europe there are not. If we try to balance this with 50% of the population that likely helps. 



Jared Mauch

> On May 13, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> IMHO, no meeting on Friday doesn’t really facilitate more unstructured discussion as most people will book flight leaving on Friday if no meeting is scheduled on Friday.
> It is much more effective to facilitate more unstructured discussion if less sessions are scheduled per day, longer break time, etc. such as morning sessions start later, say 10am (giving people time to have morning informal discussions), longer lunch break or session break in afternoon.
>  
> Linda Dunbar
>  
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IETF Chair
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 8:08 AM
> To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
>  
> The IESG will experiment with a new agenda structure at IETF 103. We will be running working group meetings Monday to Thursday, November 5-8, only. There will be no working group meetings on Friday, November 9. A variety of facilities will be available for ad hoc meetings on Friday, including some breakout rooms available until 13:30 and the Code Lounge until 15:00. Participants will be able to sign up to use ad hoc meeting space on Friday starting when we open up WG scheduling for IETF 103. 
> 
> The motivations for this experiment are twofold. First, with the growth of the IETF Hackathon, the IETF meeting week is getting very long for a larger number of people. This is affecting even people who do not attend the Hackathon, because other pre-meeting events are now being scheduled prior to the Hackathon. Second, we would like to provide more unstructured time for IETF participants. Given that 20-25% of working groups typically request not to be scheduled on Friday already, we will be experimenting with more unstructured time on Friday.
> 
> While running this experiment we will still be able to accommodate our usual number of working group scheduling requests, in part by offering a larger number of shorter slots. There will be no 2.5-hour slots in the meeting session request tool; 2 hours will be the longest slot available for sign-up. WG chairs who want a slot that is longer than 2 hours will be encouraged to check the ‘Other’ box in the list of slot lengths in the meeting request tool and explain in the text box that they would like a longer slot. We will be able to combine slots on some days and in some meeting rooms to provide longer slots for WGs that need them. (This is basically just a reversal of the current default, where WG chairs already can indicate that they are willing to split their slot with another WG). 
> 
> We will be collecting feedback about this experiment via the meeting survey. You will also be welcome to send feedback directly to iesg@ietf.org or by speaking with IESG members at the meeting.
>  
> Alissa Cooper
> on behalf of the IESG