Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 16 May 2018 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F94D12D72F; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AbNpQSX6bmPt; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F1F12946D; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j186-v6so1322049ita.5; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=o3q2v8o0YkAwsd+ntrh1AqPbS87c2B3i41vw590PXv4=; b=s4ZMD1BRD0t8suGn+qI4Lo2Qc2smyOVqSvWDClua5GHm3LYawCS1LOo+tUVcHpwJU/ QOBupBA6F2s4pCzqrGcgBjs0kC/H2e+ok75MlVh76ToF0fj7KQKmtQMAg8ZpgUUjaQVE AHPc4hB7ybEfeA6jZrsaz0AkRz3fI23ASPV8VH7Dez81ahA4UFd3VEfpG2TAwFlM5WMo nwgl/cpLhU2BnN2h9hU/1wK4Up6cPfjCDkADG4ju2QeRCxpcjoGe6AW6OGPaCkOy9e8v 58Yqbu6RVJHa6hUczmBVCN/M8c2eHkGf1WerVdx1BXWY4gHCWUwA9FL7MG8Zqihewa7Z wO0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=o3q2v8o0YkAwsd+ntrh1AqPbS87c2B3i41vw590PXv4=; b=Be780DVNLtp0oS1hZz47NlLOYNKS4bZkxGS7Pi+b0p302tH6g2T2XYYatQPAdLhcv1 1BRdDnfq8dlipSCNJx8DzSc/8xU5RbOTdJFnWsJU9RYH8cLpculJi08v2Lfssz9g1sMm 7wwT4/s+mJOXPApBTYPQhKUcRGz+7qR/NDmUnS6Pc7401yVigB7wWvEsKFzmYeB/oOx/ YGiLeU5agMiOiLISoExjTmY6QYXL7bF6odDNoVzxooeFrFHO3l9raYD92PbgY/6L5WOe VDh4xr5S0JBUWh6DVOvnmqJbFAOjstYLqWmECtUCzcC5vNw3/PIFllPb0DEwx9kcSFZW zQWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdUWVbNpwKZgr3wAjR0H730pgMBQqnmFAnOu7WAwI9+l/KhBlqe t3rS+rQS86V3+LLn4zsNJUWvWVeA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrTidtrlxtxEiui09O09y1IsSzfRHY+CaH4Y0Pdvg/P0EO0ZEaWI3A++dsVGefxFIEdLryucA==
X-Received: by 2002:a24:6e16:: with SMTP id w22-v6mr694638itc.67.1526473752691; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id r1-v6sm1240441ioc.57.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 May 2018 05:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Ted Lemon <>,
Cc: John C Klensin <>, Paul Wouters <>, IETF Chair <>, ietf <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <> <> <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:29:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2F60287DD15528DADE320DD5"
Content-Language: en-GB
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 12:29:16 -0000

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 

- Stewart

On 15/05/2018 17:24, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The issue I see with this experiment is that I think that the 
> predictions that nobody will stay for Friday is accurate—this belief 
> produces a negative network effect that will mean that even people who 
> would want to show up because the proposed schedule for Friday would 
> in theory be useful won't show up, because they know that in practice 
> there won't be a quorum of people who stay through Friday.   And this 
> means that a lot of facilities will be paid for and not used.   So in 
> that sense I think this is a bad idea.   If we aren't going to have 
> meetings on Friday, Friday should just be a teardown day, and not a 
> day when we hold meeting rooms available.
> If we want to have informal meetings as described in the proposal, the 
> way to do this is to announce that Friday will be a full day of 
> meetings, just like any other day, announce that we will schedule 
> popular meetings on Friday so that if you decide to leave Friday, you 
> will miss those meetings, and then schedule the informal time in the 
> middle somewhere as others have suggested.   It's always frustrating 
> to me that meetings that I think are fairly important get scheduled on 
> Friday and then nobody shows up for them because people already 
> assumed that they could leave on Friday.   In that sense this proposal 
> is a win for me, because it means I will not have to worry about that 
> if I attend the Bangkok IETF. But it seems like a waste of resources 
> to hold informal meeting times when it's vanishingly unlikely that 
> anyone at all will attend.
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya 
> < <>> wrote:
>     On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Adam Roach <
>     <>> wrote:
>         Replying to the thread in general rather than any one message:
>         most of the responses so far have been focusing on perceived
>         efficacy of informal meetings on Friday (which is good
>         feedback, although I suspect it will be better informed after
>         the experiment is run).
>         I have yet to see any comments on the fact that we have O(30)
>         working groups ask not to be scheduled on Fridays every single
>         meeting. One of my personal hopes for this experiment is that
>         we learn whether we can avoid these requests (and the
>         consequent scheduling complications, which are non-trivial) by
>         simply removing the broadly unwanted Friday slots from
>         consideration altogether.
>         I am curious if anyone has thoughts about how this particular
>         scheduling difficulty can be addressed beyond what we might
>         learn from the Bangkok experiment.
>     It seems like the experiment will go ahead :-)
>     My suggestion is:
>     either treat Friday as a regular work day and put complete
>     scheduling on that day. I don't think companies treat Fridays
>     special, you work on Friday like any other day, right?
>     or completely make it off. Now we are including Saturday in the
>     meeting days and starting to eat up from the other side to make up
>     for it, isn't that strange?
>     Regarding flight times, if the meeting is overseas, airline
>     companies want you to stay one week, usually from Saturday/Sunday
>     to next Saturday. So in Bangkok, I am going to have to stay on
>     Friday in order to get a cheaper flight.
>     Why not get back to the good old Sunday-Friday schedule?
>     Behcet
>         /a