Re: 10 a.m.

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 11 July 2016 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 3469E12D149 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 xk8of0WC9OVh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C52C312B024 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id f6so74580438lfg.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6rdh5eh1Q67VjlIsIiv+fWffx3csusMdUYlPB56twis=; b=h8Bfpqu5UmyMpZe3c4MEE+BSMoYpVcumg6PMgcmcXW3XS5Ya0Pc7QWwcRA8Tuq7zc7 6yL1rfjyHqOFiZ04EmmuEe78g9+IMluJYjMWvWxNuyuP+Aahn5CTi/EJ1zjce7exFh7e kSUIZxYw/X/WUrjC89fGS79WFW7nBDREQcLW8nHaV05Xk0nyhMx8gmVaq0+dZW63cM9o aNhKbP37w+mbwgemG0V89oEeicP/7VPaACuMpeFKgSxtYVjw/2wUdkWWRp17tO5ZsMHv i+f1z3+VHpA/Def0Tqn1emp/hlz+Obs4RL++CluWYyGY3yVuXnqN+RZZw7P+jV38UiHI 6N9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6rdh5eh1Q67VjlIsIiv+fWffx3csusMdUYlPB56twis=; b=jg8JtvJanSfd9q//7FWRpCWayZLhd6ImmUsEttSIF/9DhhmmIPeIBa4hBE1oV00cUR uj8Utf+J+eBP1lVL2j9TSM/omv3bMY5EIMNUGZCUu7FGjt+wq6Z9TLhJzZp7lAUNuOWF Z04x0eytD6U9OHeQNv6ut8yM/nq1PQuemtv7SftdjG9KWxnYloFstBonMMYax+zukHfD YP4K+mmP8GDRm6E6jbhcSqL/EW9P9GW2QBOX4UN7/tBzAF5B+3UIxCeyf4ZLnuLJiP0J XOgsvv7VxXO2xif8nvWYn7NRWYw3/CSNpACJz+Tvc8VpjDC1FBgUe7hYdOBJ0xF+rJ6m M/fQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLPGkkepoIHvGuKqCgsF6udcTrhYHxd1zE+N0cuvT3rJpq5Und5iZ/sS7fbOYeGIp3XRPOgb9rZ7OqtzQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.210.20 with SMTP id j20mr5514704lfg.139.1468246225000; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.219 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1reFdH6mr4D7ZnBF0RiftFp_5eqYrKFdrk4zuXzLOxZQAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <5EA6A07F-EE58-4F39-8502-A4FA1282E954@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAG4d1rcr3Yk4iR5Q0o9vyvR7COOY+qaW2C63TM-vkaXAkqYMvQ@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|0308d300610c0123df56a7ee21b1b33es6AEmw03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5EA6A07F-EE58-4F39-8502-A4FA1282E954@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAPt1N1mRvYfx-vHYvi_QqvLtOME9wBL5Vxa+vk0iMxk_eJ05yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reFdH6mr4D7ZnBF0RiftFp_5eqYrKFdrk4zuXzLOxZQAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:09:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kuFL_VCV7aYp7MkM27S6DOyz8We+pjJ-Ke+wbcG0xhTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114003c6af316805375cb68d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6APpzHCjiWr579qmHY9YxD4dqzU>
Cc: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, 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 14:10:29 -0000

Nope, that's not soon enough.   Peoples' flights are often booked by then
(mine was).

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> It was announced on June 17 when the preliminary agenda was sent out.
> Since that is when one
> looks to figure out when sessions might be, it seemed appropriate.
>
> "NOTE: We are continuing the experiment to have sessions begin at 10:00
> based on positive community feedback."
>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>
>> My experience of this was that I heard at the plenary that it was popular
>> and that we would try it again, but did not hear a proposal for when
>> (although I may be misremembering that).   And then when I found out about
>> it on the agenda, it was news to me.   And I'd bought my tickets assuming a
>> 9am meeting start time and assuming I wouldn't be able to make the last
>> meeting on Friday, and then realized I wouldn't be able to stay for the
>> whole first meeting either.
>>
>> So on the one hand, I think this was pre-discussed.   But on the other
>> hand, the messaging wasn't sufficiently effective _for me_.   I just looked
>> in the registration announcement and the "meeting information"
>> announcement, and there's nothing there.   The first I noticed it was when
>> I looked at the preliminary agenda.
>>
>> I am painfully well acquainted with the vicissitudes of IESG life, so I
>> feel it would be churlish to point fingers, but I will say that if we do
>> this again, the information should be at the top of both those
>> announcements in large, friendly letters.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I share Brian’s concern on this.
>>>
>>> On 11 Jul 2016, at 14:10, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> In Buenos Aires, the dinner times are substantially later and the
>>> schedule was
>>> adjusted to accommodate local conditions.  There was a lot of positive
>>> feedback
>>> about the later starting time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Was this one of the questions in the post-meeting survey, and if so what
>>> was the result?
>>>
>>> I'm sure you remember the Paris meeting where the IETF tried a different
>>> evening
>>> schedule & it was very popular.
>>>
>>> So, in response to the feedback and as an experiment, the starting time
>>> is later.
>>> I believe Alexa included that this was an experiment in announcements.
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m not against experiments, but I don’t recall any open list discussion
>>> on conducting it, which would have been nice to have, or did that happen?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alia
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Where do I find the discussion and subsequent rough consensus to switch
>>>> the
>>>> starting time of the IETF f2f meeting days to 10 a.m.?
>>>>
>>>> As far as I'm concerned that is a big mistake, wasting an hour every day
>>>> and making it (even more) difficult to relax in the evenings.
>>>>
>>>> (If there is some local peculiarity in Buenos Aires and Berlin that
>>>> makes
>>>> this more practical, it would be interesting to know.)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>    Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>