Re: amount of time for WG meetings, starting times, unstructured time, etc for Seoul

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 15 September 2016 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0A012B027; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7WJQEvoqFXt; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E1D12B02C; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z123so19984437pfz.2; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/kB5G9XXTHVFCFSWeE95qsXxzqmCqaSZLgi1xrH5WVI=; b=ksv9JTF26spsy/1EYSK1HBZfyppy/TQGangoAcXjbrHEhA+BWX1bswa0re1r9NZVtb RLVOzufZUImMa7hM7ZDrs+fD29eNHNAiS6EVFkcNi9tJAw0WZ5C1eDGBsEoP1/h6FkOD ARIxLGsKGBXIxrNy0bCy7OwRGSBLXc6A8j5wB+mGIal8/C3Ai2a2XRreTd9zNP1cMWQp b520AfOmfqu5yf3ZWwhZGt3v2u/dNIyfPhk9n5NPvQFTQYlYF8FDbtchMsaHSWv2GnIQ kK+p1QmN4UEvlZybpcr8qq1Y9tQNuKbjF+M78yxdMDlHn1dQTMApSiS1pKl0ygLwAPnu OveA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/kB5G9XXTHVFCFSWeE95qsXxzqmCqaSZLgi1xrH5WVI=; b=dHMhmnrxVIFagoFU83R3+cwRoXsq2KRQpJY5QGUASUExsIT3e/owEmGqR45uOaSfKd MI7fKjGjLB1+K+bSwjjW4/lwfse6hlw0nzriQsN8tdNsgMAsS7GKEfxfNvInxG2DK2MB XSyqAvxRMOjw1WUwNgsMlU1be9WtSv885zxChCFBEHnUMjlRQAVogIvN5sNnKJ2ijsAf eVUkj/Uotdq+GZNTT9ciQwEmvwBkwLF2rGLZ/CouQYb0vMBhHpYLdZL60Jk1QfMvi5/w ct3uM2tePkKh6C9mZUdoRE1QH+obzgB9WPL2O3QGZnBAljkGkmSNJvj0sXDPwFXAriKy +ENQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMOvAk/n8vgUzR5zNZ69pV6343ZacmM97kUCz71aUxqeYL1mmK1JWAf/EJJUp2jYg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i128mr17646117pfe.144.1473971516579; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id p187sm47084495pfb.5.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: amount of time for WG meetings, starting times, unstructured time, etc for Seoul
To: IETF Chair <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:32:01 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:31:59 -0000

Hi Jari,

Thanks for asking! Here are some quick thoughts (although I will not be in Seoul):

> o  We have also heard repeated calls for stricter time allocation control by the IESG, in that only some working groups or maybe no working groups should be allowed extensive use of meeting hours (2x3hrs etc).

I don't think there should be a strict rule about this. It all depends on where
a WG is in its life cycle. Sometimes there is a real need for in-depth face2face
discussion, but not quite enough to merit a full interim meeting. Sometimes a
long interim meeting is essential. Sometimes the mailing list is working well
and there are few issues that deserve f2f time.

A WG that *consistently* claims that it needs 6 hours of f2f time is clearly
in trouble and probably deserves drastic action by the AD.

So I think this is a matter of AD judgment - with a clear preference for short,
efficient sessions, but the option of longer sessions when well justified.

> Q1. Please confirm that the community wishes that we arrange more unstructured time for work to happen.

Up to a point. I used the 9-10 a.m. time in Berlin, but I didn't like the later lunch
and dinner times that resulted. And I saw fewer people having organised breakfast
meetings than normal, so the time between 7 and 9 a.m. was probably less well used.

> Q2. Would you like to either keep the amount of meeting time from Berlin, or reduce it so that an additional hour(s) can be used for design team meetings and other unofficial interaction?

Definitely don't reduce it. The main reason Berlin worked well for me was the large amount
of *space* for informal meetings, not the schedule.