Re: 10 a.m.

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 11 July 2016 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 CB57D12D0B8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 thed0xkDiuwh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C34612B03C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f93so26194652lfi.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gS0DvzZMJq2epHeG0KmmzMkvoJlGbtDbFklSibafb+k=; b=hhCg6ZbrNdfrixxRVSxZzcvPOP0v5EVLgaPmtrFuiEflvtf+JCJRhE6MzdrGy7SuCv Pl+nM9xajCzOBAm7jCzkFjKkfGXYWX26whqMMcYTYZ8DIg1kFugGNlrnkqXnkJQcQTte ldVIlKeRpGLkWT/ewwjuKAIo8d5byzyiP2AAi5HgFTjsYrGOl/J4QT/+Se3i5zmSkJGb mTBAmuijAt18AyI7xoN+X4OnV5/x8u3qebaJQjP5U2h1NfboFZ60w0aklY2Z0FYZscH1 Lc7YuZF3Uu6S1HksdHaH4V3GIPdH13M9ie3jtqXqVKdsVDpMI5T5XIgYuJ49psmwuIwH W6eg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gS0DvzZMJq2epHeG0KmmzMkvoJlGbtDbFklSibafb+k=; b=OQcGLt8ec4MQMo793Ra+W39mynz2QkyzrkL2m9YXGTiR/0TQASRtKNkuMrL35FaFPy wae8wHH5/u5OptHbMS4mHvdT1oXZsX52pD4ojrbImON8VyiYzteOZ+Z37EqMYnUln3po uWeFTpbXWwtmo8kdZPXao+ku6zQqWqfQ0oj5l/QmsAZiAA5/t/zjWFYk1uYOcExdtT9d 3f/CjEaWJYt3a3VVU8JCs6D8EENj4FH7cZykW3euZbltDAlFDRzE4x5dHKqgt31ZPgB6 J5p4nYKlLoP5sQXoa1Z2/RL037/qIAHyinHxLeTRa/mFhbOxtbVYUvhEUzlzrdBhG7jy dgNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJHbYbUQ25Q/sdrjAoYL9brz9obRytvjy9vvymtEzQ1ShtC9B3Trzd2cG41XZrE2nUsQGooLVzOLmtYZw==
X-Received: by 10.25.91.76 with SMTP id p73mr5087883lfb.181.1468253690356; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.219 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <41f9104e-335f-b2a9-3ca8-9d5b0e7de3b6@gmail.com> <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:14:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kuT_+4+36+C+zCduTdpz6co=EZMPgT1WTNfeb5o3E_yw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11411536a77eaa05375e73a5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QaHr1PpfF52yaxjwqvl_5KXFeJQ>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:14:54 -0000

Yes, but that would require a serious rethink about how we run meetings,
and suggestions to that effect have not gone far.   I think we need to add
a new working group to discuss it in more depth and bring it to
consensus....

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:12 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Monday, July 11, 2016 16:38 +0100 Stewart Bryant
> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am more concerned that we have wasted five hours of meeting
> > time that could have been used to reduce meeting conflicts,
> > and thus enable better cross area review.
>
> FWIW, the justification for a half-day Friday session was that
> it was necessary to schedule so much work that there was simply
> no way to do it in four days.  There have been comments in this
> thread (and the many prior versions of it) about the
> desirability of getting home in Friday (which, in turn, may
> interact with decisions about bringing families to meetings as
> well as with both participant and IETF costs).   If we really
> have potential surplus meeting hours, is it time to reconsider
> the Friday decision, trying to use possible meeting slots
> (including time recovered by reducing the number of plenaries)
> efficiently enough to return to a four-day schedule?
>
>    john
>
>
>