IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 10 a.m.

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Mon, 11 July 2016 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 506A812D5C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 TjkWYCazinh6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 BA57F12D5BE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id u25so32291170qtb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mharIQHJkYXJiTqqCo5xZKRmp4Xaci2TTyTuU2Yelsg=; b=HnyOeroOu5xl7A2XNTjjqyW5tj7k4kgwxSb2l7OC89PHZDVfrmP0UYu499nEBokog3 s2Md3al+CA3dWo1s1Sszx+Sfo+nA3CGcqXFrXvxy2BiIVlCZ6dSR7X5gL/RP2u5PivV7 2GU3osfanQKU72B2A8dPnnsOThXeqMHTYdaA5eaQZyZg+cZVglcT85nwUOdmr/zd6Id+ 5TBtzF4mULfiTRH44aKnFhDQentKjlL0JrRWj2wJjR2q15Bh0EeHEYjPtZXJYG4bPQCs IDQxL11QAeuY918c9rpGnjUr8KdRe6jBOfbIzwpjsTfhsjHSAZ8JmUe2vQN13WCFTPIk HhKQ==
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=mharIQHJkYXJiTqqCo5xZKRmp4Xaci2TTyTuU2Yelsg=; b=STfO1mt4EdYo3F/bMIqUafywlVa3tSy5Atm2vb4A0Mz9OezZtVi0gk/oPquTFuzcj2 I0fXDNx/odld/UhxXnee7j1YMLZr3DRFmYCwiZnp3UayO+lymF89gGJSKLKRNj2EkMK+ E/lrYnX1fodQvZmMeRhGcPMMndZXGlLLz6q+8/4EZyINYx5CD6/K95i560+KiVDpCVZ2 JR7CiKI0cQUQtfFJapjAo7PvsmscjO8ZUTPO1jCOny2p8zQrNqaBv0F5wLuV3EtUKqh8 44j4IQWrB65bUMFmAsqWdFKlXOHsN8v3YWFpwPJtom9qcjsXZSTdgK5hR017DPYvsXcF EDQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIRSexXuHrVl09PuertXFNVzjiTvn9poOY1Bw2bgOnWVyOy2i+2YeLQw4Rp3s+EZgg7inITSqniQJr+mg==
X-Received: by 10.200.37.252 with SMTP id f57mr5293473qtf.68.1468254223833; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.57.81 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <41f9104e-335f-b2a9-3ca8-9d5b0e7de3b6@gmail.com> <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:23:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdJ8mZcLgcVf=EyJouvZQFBerhuLmoy4N8DHc7RfDpF-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141136e73a63905375e9327"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9a9kzfcPY0jr_vbkE-X0am8hWkc>
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 16:23:46 -0000

John,

We are closer to the opposite - needing to expand Friday to a longer day.
This IETF, again, we had to ask WG chairs to seriously consider and reduce
their
requested session time.  We also added another parallel track to one day to
make
the schedule work.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:12 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Monday, July 11, 2016 16:38 +0100 Stewart Bryant
> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am more concerned that we have wasted five hours of meeting
> > time that could have been used to reduce meeting conflicts,
> > and thus enable better cross area review.
>
> FWIW, the justification for a half-day Friday session was that
> it was necessary to schedule so much work that there was simply
> no way to do it in four days.  There have been comments in this
> thread (and the many prior versions of it) about the
> desirability of getting home in Friday (which, in turn, may
> interact with decisions about bringing families to meetings as
> well as with both participant and IETF costs).   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?
>
>    john
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email