IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 08 November 2010 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899B93A6972; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:22:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.615
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oe0X9BzkZXz6; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAF93A6900; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so5788012iwn.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:22:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=0BCcK/71SkC3H7KaQUFaH4vLmF35bX3y1HvbuKs+z3g=; b=iQzFxCTY/wl6Jl6dZoGSTWr93TdOGhiHHvUofqVd1E7cTczclWlFqYE/K6VVDg/EjK CgECM4NYWldNrf8mEi8fXXkmCmVGV1noRzjdwqJ7m5Bd6OhUBv2o30D4hj0rjrPv5RAP bu2TVnxF9gi5FmV0KUWvN264e8iQ+rFCPXEnM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=PEYsekEm0BH+IfLZtZ4gfGVpw9kI4FrSsAAYGiM8+ZDgTAj5IAlrqtLwVk8Qz+wBJP hynDX0xqdsqXwsI0AvuZ4TZ7c4pzWXmOphAdG+2znR4Vv6OO6pQJT9Pdtz8yCjmjNzil eGdmRZH8RtVWYgNX4p5oVEdjAXDEn0zZcfHdk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.123.1 with SMTP id p1mr3251223icr.363.1289193777220; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.1.81 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:22:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4CD768DC.5020309@bbn.com>
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com> <4CD76710.7050004@gmail.com> <4CD768DC.5020309@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:22:57 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BiivYvmOzeftzJ7IGl5D6TCy8-c
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+CtT_VZbfH2DBDhrA7B4nbYakXD8j6k_GH_Lh@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 05:22:40 -0000

>> Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely
>> frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us
>> are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer
>> the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce
>> the problem of clashes.
>
> Strongly agree!

As do I.  I attend BoFs across areas, with interest in looking at new
work in general.  I've often thought we should *never* schedule two
BoFs in the same time slot.  I'd hate to have guaranteed conflicts,
allowing me to attend only one or two BoFs when a dozen were
scheduled.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email