Re: 10 a.m.

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

​I think we have rather bigger problems than deciding the start time. But
the way we have slid into picking the start time is symptomatic of a
broader problem.

​I find a large number of WG sessions to be very unproductive because they
consist of status updates that could be sent in an email or discovered by
looking at the tracker. What I am interested in is working through the set
of action items that need discussion.

Yes, cross area work is nice. But I don't think our current format achieves
that and I am not convinced it is as desirable as people think. The purpose
of a layers abstraction model is so that people working at one particular
level only need to consider their own layer and the interfaces to the
layers above and below them. If something in applications depends on
something in routing, well something is wrong. And something is really
wrong if the interfaces between the layers has to shift more than once a
decade or so.

One major benefit of the new approach is that I can now schedule meetings
in the mornings before everything else starts. That is especially important
if you have a 9am Monday meeting and someone isn't going to be at the
location in fit state till the Monday of the meeting.

Contrawise, I don't see any good reason to delay the start on a Friday. In
fact I would prefer to start an hour earlier.

So my incremental improvement schedule would be:


Mon: 10am
Tues: 9/10 (slight preference for 9)
Wed: 9/10 (slight preference for 9)
Thurs: 9/10 (slight preference for 9)
Fri: 8 am.