Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 15 May 2018 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2C912D943 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 eLay8OAzLoiI for <>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD8A126D74 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c5-v6so13144562itj.1 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HXlNCyqNf5QbSWRk2fxF9zXjo4D87wnRoIgz2QGeDe0=; b=kVZ+LLUZwPJcv75oCDe9P68XsxuF6iAdHe4IXKAglt9+Ao0rpCsM8h5KvhngBOpVDn wN63UBXQ3cAeWev6BHRrYOGfkv8/loscQ1hA4IJo7rZf5taO1QvcnrD57iTBGl/zkTC+ 858RRQ8koPia5nrrm4pFnWD8GmD4xxj/FQCru9/4jiDOLMgspkAXVDHN5xBUKRzRB4DI tjNO5RvX2z6Cotb3dfopLl0JY9m1413nowasg+kWxd86R11tnsUsvxgV2J8NUunZkl4z +ZACGPvEmedejDrpZeHYDsbOQ1UeqMGxwG0oQEsaqt2ybpQYCDdOqh3UYzknvGTIp/qD tBdQ==
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=HXlNCyqNf5QbSWRk2fxF9zXjo4D87wnRoIgz2QGeDe0=; b=slBvNREue++VMzle93TjFDWL/tO+0cEd8dkrFCisEHWNZfi2z4JqdE4O5EQstw+JF7 mmq8ZDvsrX2aEiZ0iHXdkn1T68bnXVUeWyh+pYE/jEtGEvjdt3DCVsEpg11fIaRX19m+ e3WhdNvuOqsXjodt2AjULFZV60sqvYxW9bMqkARCRlB3wNWFk7abpH1W/NDv/e/p5k13 79Dvvbhfwo8DMTyqBVGuKzBPQxUluJPozAahPPpYWnxy4As9kdpegimbMTMyRpo9Qiy3 8VM4zdglTKTdG6x1mPXWcLM5oBc4EKtfSZW9y1DCqO41m4p0By1vQqPZhsMtOHOBGRDT 9MXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweBvZlZQo8UbAEdJLl/M2RYRSfQP9nvIS/2XDJ6ikE/B8Kr3xyV hHargYF08MWRauePZDe0/T4LzBNmHDaJZGFWv9A4/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZobgnUZlEN0lLXcg8gwiyFJqXI/2CIcjH11N4hZBPBlf+tDDEPxKgY96HoPqa9r+34nVAc3EdhqSu757X7A0tQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9107:: with SMTP id t7-v6mr17230849iod.32.1526401501891; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:8cd8:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 12:24:21 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
Cc: Adam Roach <>, ietf <>, IETF Chair <>, John C Klensin <>, Paul Wouters <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e2d81056c410ba1"
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: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:25:05 -0000

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

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 <>

> 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