Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 16 May 2018 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 0F53212E8DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 urr--TKpx5nw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBB9F1270AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB98220091 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 21:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 80E352E50; Tue, 15 May 2018 21:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7631CCD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 21:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
In-Reply-To: <yblin7oihqz.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
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> <yblin7oihqz.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 21:43:00 -0400
Message-ID: <18562.1526434980@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MWg3HOGIMd6XxbvwoQ6y6dlWQeQ>
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 01:43:23 -0000

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
    >> 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.

    > Or the other option is to simply overbook ourselves from M-Th.  Which
    > would people prefer?
    
    > 1) Give in to the longer and longer IETF sessions as we need to get
    > there earlier and earlier.  [It's certainly hitting me personally.]

    > 2) Having *and attending* meetings on Friday

    > 3) Or cramming more sessions in during the rest of the week (e.g.,
    > throwing out the social and Tuesday and the Meet-n-greet on Thursday)
    > and having an additional slots then?

4) every WG gets 1 hr with conflicts sorted out.
   I read in the thread somewhere that we have some 260hours of meeting time
   available, and 120 WG.
   (I could go look it up, but 9hr * 8 slots * 4 days = 288)

   That leaves a second hour (where conflicts would mostly be ignored) for nearly
   every WG, and a few hours left over.  Many groups won't need a second
   hour, and some like 6man regularly take 4 hours.

I understand that 103 will eliminate 2.5 hour slots, and will have more 1hr
slots.  This is good, and I think that this will actually be where the more
interesting results of the experient are.

It would be nice if there was a survey asking people about WG conflicts for 101,
102 and 103. (We could go back further, but remembering 101 will be hard
enough)

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [