Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Wed, 16 May 2018 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A5C12D82F; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwTb0InCheqG; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C694C1270FC; Wed, 16 May 2018 05:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 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;; 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;; 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: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <> <> <>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 08:03:27 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: sarikaya <>, John C Klensin <>, Paul Wouters <>, IETF Chair <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb062b056c518220"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Ted Lemon <> 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 <>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Adam Roach <> 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