IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

Geoff Mulligan <geoff@proto6.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <geoff@proto6.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 BC74E28C0E2; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:32:38 -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=[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 k4JsjT1ZJWuu; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server2.coslabs.com (server2.coslabs.com [64.111.18.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163D63A696C; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grab (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by server2.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D036D1842F; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:33:07 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (unknown [222.128.202.225]) by grab (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B4280688; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:32:40 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
From: Geoff Mulligan <geoff@proto6.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-Reply-To: <4CD76304.4090508@dcrocker.net>
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com> <4CD76304.4090508@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:32:40 -0700
Message-ID: <1289187160.1619.25.camel@d430>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:45:07 -0800
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@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 03:32:40 -0000

Maybe for the experiment we should also move the Social to Friday
evening: 1) it won't interfere with IP meeting time; 2) less people so
better chance of getting a ticket; 3) more folks will stay for Friday
meetings; 4) IETF meeting will be over so we can let our hair down -
oops that's not a problem now.

	geoff



On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 10:40 +0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 11/8/2010 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
> > The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> > for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> > be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> > proposal to ADs.
> >
> > Please let us know whether you support this experiment.
> 
> 
> 1.  Can you provide some rational for the details of the experiment?
> 
> 2.  Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?
> 
> d/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email