Re: 10 a.m.

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 19 July 2016 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 38D6B12D8D0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] 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 qwVt2RY6DNjJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D4512D900 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101E32CC9C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:14:40 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mLEENrpZigH9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:14:39 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670422CC45 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:14:39 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B93540A8-A4D2-4946-8FD6-20539F3893F9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607121025100.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:14:37 +0200
Message-Id: <F66A50E9-AC5C-471A-A261-BF65AAEE4FBA@piuha.net>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <5EA6A07F-EE58-4F39-8502-A4FA1282E954@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAG4d1rcr3Yk4iR5Q0o9vyvR7COOY+qaW2C63TM-vkaXAkqYMvQ@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|0308d300610c0123df56a7ee21b1b33es6AEmw03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5EA6A07F-EE58-4F39-8502-A4FA1282E954@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAPt1N1mRvYfx-vHYvi_QqvLtOME9wBL5Vxa+vk0iMxk_eJ05yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reFdH6mr4D7ZnBF0RiftFp_5eqYrKFdrk4zuXzLOxZQAw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607121025100.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RX3jNzAGRrgpC5Fzo7w5t5F2nmI>
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:14:44 -0000

FWIW, for the sake of understanding where we are, I did a small calculation of the available meeting time for the last few meetings, and thought it would be interesting to share.

The number to watch for is the session hours, i.e., time that we’re in regular IETF meetings. That time doesn’t include breaks, lunches, Sunday events, etc. Those session hours get used in different ways, sometimes we break them into shorter sessions, sometimes it is used for 8 parallel WG sessions, sometimes it is used for 1 joint plenary meeting, etc.

But of course, us individuals do have other things beyond the regular IETF meetings, say design team or IESG or other side meetings, may not attend all sessions (shock!) and so on.

The data is presented without any particular conclusion. I’ll just point out that we can independently adjust:

* length of day, implying longer or shorter full days (incl. side things)
* timing within the days, start at 9 or 10
* parallelism, i.e., number of tracks that will impact conflicts but also our capacity to host meetings that the WGs have requested
* number of plenaries (with the recent trend being 1 plenary) which affects joint vs. WG time split

Here’s the data on available session hours. (Disclaimer: there’s always the danger of me having miscounted somewhere.)

89:
sessions		21
session hours		38.5

90:
sessions		18
session hours		35.5

91:
sessions		18
session hours		35.5

92:
sessions		18
session hours		35.0

93:
sessions		19
session hours		36.0

94:
sessions		16
session hours		33.0

95:
sessions		18
session hours		33.0

96:
sessions		17
session hours		33.0

I also counted how many WG meetings and meeting hours there were. So for instance, if we had 10 sessions and each one of them was 2 hours long and had eight fully occupied tracks, that would be 10*2*8 = 160 hours. Again, as I just did a quick count, I could have missed something or miscalculated somewhere. And I didn’t change the counting due to cancellations.

89:
WG meetings		140
WG meeting hours	256.0

90:
WG meetings		126
WG meeting hours	246.0

91:
WG meetings		128
WG meeting hours	257.0

92:
WG meetings		128
WG meeting hours	244.5

93:
WG meetings		134
WG meeting hours	249.0

94:
WG meetings		118
WG meeting hours	236.5

95:
WG meetings		131
WG meeting hours	238.0

96:
WG meetings		128
WG meeting hours	244.0