Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change

James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> Fri, 20 July 2012 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.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 30FD221F853B; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEV83yvoB-pt; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BF321F853C; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=1356; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342811031; x=1344020631; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=fo0C0N8/c4MkCSEnqO3UXMuU8sldobiQYqkUBNXUkCA=; b=OgeUatKdJRm2SlCgzUniHUkxt0BdNgsuVw0gbGx0dh+f21uBQtdVEyXZ xO2SGWoREynRq5RfV2iH04hPlyA0LFaaBJ23ssSqaPjhRQq1OXAqJ+CJk wwywRA6uCHuhTGMtNDyD4KU6eiWjctvTQOJpNBjkQ62xnjec9nJDAFlbY E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,625,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="52536637"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2012 19:03:51 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-WS.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8714.cisco.com [10.99.80.21]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6KJ3ooZ028685; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:03:51 GMT
Message-Id: <201207201903.q6KJ3ooZ028685@mtv-core-1.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:03:47 -0500
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, IETF Administrative Director <iad@ietf.org>
From: James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change
In-Reply-To: <D7593A6A-41F7-4004-9249-FBBA5030D1C4@cisco.com>
References: <20120720160624.12163.25321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50098901.7090009@bogus.com> <D7593A6A-41F7-4004-9249-FBBA5030D1C4@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: "iaoc@ietf.org" <iaoc@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:03:02 -0000

At 12:29 PM 7/20/2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

>On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> > On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
> >> The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change 
> for IETF 95
> >> scheduled for March 2016.
> >>
> >> Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016.  27 
> March is Easter.
> >>
> >> The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 
> 2016 and would like
> >> feedback on those dates before making a decision.  Comments 
> appreciated to ietf@ietf.org
> >> by 6 August 2012.
> >
> > 20 march is palm sunday on the western calender.
> >
> > If one's a conflict presumably the other is too...
>
>I personally avoid being away from home on Easter, and would prefer 
>that the IETF meeting avoid it.
>
>Yes, Palm Sunday is a question, but not quite on the same scale as 
>Easter. I will note, however, that Good Friday (the Friday before 
>Easter) is a national holiday in a number of countries. People 
>schedule vacations around that weekend.
>
>My suggestion: take the week of April 3 or later.

I agree Easter is a date to avoid, but am not offering which way to 
move the meeting. April 3rd of later seems interesting, but does 
start to impact the interval between this meeting and the summer one.

James