Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1BD28C0F7; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:57:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pq5IQ7Z3lLhO; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5756B28C0F2; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33so1421380qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:57:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IQG5oG7D/foy/qOmrHzedL/ATeVzpl7a2Nc2FFivxbA=; b=xHrjho9pAMa9qbOk+aXLTryJOZOsGhVyy3FWBF9i7xv1H8awrw75xUOYn73xPo6eVa 5QOFpClZVu9bMRL4lnCha8yVNX9bP6OGjDYhUHWUcxelUFMNXCqZhcztXy5J4jjGHuBO uXEzBitWmmiduK/35yQlib23aytEFD918HM/4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=f6ILFULpJVdGvuqK1Ph25tcf7cXah4fRC69oPA2iPtH/EQTKvXzIaSAPFSZD5LScaQ CNhM+njc5SRuMyx3G/eiRO1U8jEBjB3PPHA+wYC9KkYF0BzQTVLjZGYZkJOv5KxC5ry3 dQqh54uWPkZFDCykIqYJnMRdpD9cz1BOxmhG0=
Received: by 10.229.241.69 with SMTP id ld5mr4516686qcb.229.1289185046285; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.129.35.35] (dhcp-2323.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.35.35]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n7sm4226172qcu.28.2010.11.07.18.57.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CD76710.7050004@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:57:20 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 Nov 2010 02:57:07 -0000

On 2010-11-08 15:26, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.
> 
> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  

Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely
frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us
are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer
the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce
the problem of clashes.

> Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  

That is a feature of concentrating the BOFs, but I'm not sure
that it's particularly valuable. It moves the clashing problem,
but doesn't remove it.

> Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.

Do you mean: make the BOF request cutoff later? If so, that is
a feature, but since people are deadline driven, I'm not sure
that moving the deadline is a major advantage.

> Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
> welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

It depends on my first question: how many BOF-BOF clashes would
we get as a result?

     Brian