Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 16 May 2018 12:03 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A5C12D82F; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwTb0InCheqG; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x230.google.com (mail-ot0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C694C1270FC; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x230.google.com with SMTP id n1-v6so569826otf.7; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ju582eCuPwQcuANq1oIdo8MexeW00ifkpOfP0plTiQs=; b=b/DSdGHZRTdq3C582LIddFXLkbttvHntTaDozNQz7yHHJhKTBqHjy8h32l3Hc/hshj CO8xKHaxEjGbJoO9JDt9rSHwVFIc/QOZEEj5ECyP9IT6L/7gW86Rg3aoIbd2sYSkbDqg NV34t9kL6dj7mXpYo7l0aBpDqJyN19gXppvlk9R3SF20m/UHFFtHt17shHwM94YUveaU GujZl1niujGaWm5pU/5j+tfYilEURGCSqQgXDRE994GARotLvzZtMJuJt7uTqgh/Z829 T/JwLm1YCD4e47cxt5MjKrfwc2dN8em0/cPUv05BK/ljejBJcZEUlqUDLXWqrF4UOf/S JyhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ju582eCuPwQcuANq1oIdo8MexeW00ifkpOfP0plTiQs=; b=Wb6p47K5WD7ClRAP3yxog2IeaQvI0yYbGNWy4iHnHrzy/GoNIGNKy9QuX9PbLGfq1w V/n2TeVK3soL1PzPa5iym7hgCVKezPV048+l3Cw8f64V42t38kLlvYsWUoutmuiq5pkK JWjFD/7kMVoybW6I36AG+cwhDLXuFr+gMySgFI6hMxtPJ/dl/N4ugIJa1xmPDhuBdSaw rtF8+y3+91Ov663Gd2SvUElvFPQd8h7Ro08NCzYcYU9WMbFaArjQXUTLcrjTtcHsiwff LTh9wJxvLY1be+35eRfWFyskEHiffWQOYVgKeuJYcenIXMeCyM2eSzxnjbkidsL4/pXG 61jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdyF54uvgSv5OVp9t5SW6+ev0BB9pRRk71IMvcSAV669U7Mzu/a Z048gmnOsZlI/lmVyOkHeF9VGjEZz6oW76xJ/Ps=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqCVpUqYB/SZJBMfbUakR8Mhje/d27xkg5totbu67cXJ+4/5JI1h6xv9DjoGZTCJVMphFcZCB7rthNqzWybERY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:28e7:: with SMTP id s94-v6mr489865ota.346.1526472228137; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:1f27:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1kmAHtTH_zbyHL2-xzqMQ5EyRd7s17vv72ZWt6stG80aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3678CC52-1F1B-4B17-8654-E75C9B63AD39@ietf.org> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <B0824E35-23D5-4836-8D1B-423830F3E6A8@nohats.ca> <6dc1e452-2168-a00e-fb2b-d48a46aa895d@pi.nu> <36fab0bc-ef5d-070a-be86-9d0d74d95ceb@gmail.com> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <dd0bacae-290b-ad23-cdbf-8c159462c436@nostrum.com> <CAC8QAce2XKhZkvq=5tfrVOCv_R2ohQYM+GHhhFdmxEHJbKEOTA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kmAHtTH_zbyHL2-xzqMQ5EyRd7s17vv72ZWt6stG80aA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 08:03:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3_77FQJCxRO4aRx97f+3Zn4cio4Q2zmeSXqYwxYs5hhw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb062b056c518220"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KIdPPVgDD0Aaq4QenRYGhKhEUYI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:03:52 -0000
I could not agree more with Ted. I much prefer that either Friday be a normal working day with sessions so we all plan on traveling home on Friday night or Saturday, or we just end on Thursday. No in-between, because then people will blow off Friday and leave anyway. Cheers, Andy On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> 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 <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> 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 >>> >>> >> >
- Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Ban… IETF Chair
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Linda Dunbar
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Paul Wouters
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Jared Mauch
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Loa Andersson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Adam Roach
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Adam Roach
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Wes Hardaker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Christer Holmberg
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Hardie
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… George Michaelson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Warren Kumari
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… János Farkas
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Janos Farkas
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Daniel Harkins
- 答复: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)