Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Adam Roach <> Mon, 14 May 2018 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621AF12AF84 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CeM_IEEJPBMY for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8371D128961 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w4EKpw7P076798 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 14 May 2018 15:51:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Svantevit.local
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: John C Klensin <>, Stewart Bryant <>, Loa Andersson <>, Paul Wouters <>, Linda Dunbar <>
Cc: IETF Chair <>, ietf <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 15:51:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:52:08 -0000

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