IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 10 a.m.

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mon, 11 July 2016 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 EBD0712D0AE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 w6TVfe6zft7F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0212812D099 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6BJLfV6022108; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:21:41 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk u6BJLfV6022108
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1468264902; bh=WKYnjgdoOYzto4M+znWSg4YreJU=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=AbvooYg1uDHdxWbqoBqjPnB5HsZEyoMYDazXCmNfMlNo5G3ppnqT/V2FF5UXDca2Z olBuBDsG6uE5kiaShaMJlGcUUYP7LSPU11jl36SmrEvT3I1moaVdRivePUFRUGexR8 zL8X7zucYN+4wvfq3qSKXJTbdmpfAzAgO4d8iyxU=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s6AKLf2925111988Vm ret-id none; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:21:42 +0100
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (tchowndsl.claranet.co.uk [212.188.254.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6BJLTW5000598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:21:31 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <86428765-1C82-4434-B6DA-89E34DB599E2@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:22:17 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|da5a10cfc0197d092106b3d9438f7afbs6AKLf03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|42F9A871-3D50-4374-93C4-3B45A248C3ED@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <41f9104e-335f-b2a9-3ca8-9d5b0e7de3b6@gmail.com> <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200> <86428765-1C82-4434-B6DA-89E34DB599E2@piuha.net> <42F9A871-3D50-4374-93C4-3B45A248C3ED@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Arkko Jari <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s6AKLf292511198800; tid=s6AKLf2925111988Vm; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u6BJLfV6022108
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UApV_-x2CRDfDPSonn2oD-3S_TA>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, 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 19:21:49 -0000

Hi,

> On 11 Jul 2016, at 19:07, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> I have some personal opinions about these things, but ultimately, what does the community want to do?

Can we make sure this question is asked explicitly in the post-meeting survey? That would allow feedback to be collated in an efficient way.

I’d just add a data point on overall meeting time, comparing Berlin to the previous two European meetings:

Berlin (July 2016)

Mon 10.00am - 8.00pm
Tue 10.00am - 6.20pm
Wed 10.00am - 8.10pm
Thu 10.00am - 7.30pm
Fri 10.00am - 1.20pm

Prague (July 2015)

Mon 9.00am - 7.50pm (+50 mins)
Tue 9.30am - 6.40pm (+50 mins)
Wed 9.00am - 7.40pm (+30 mins)
Thu 9.00am - 7.10pm (+40 mins)
Fri 9.00am - 1.20pm (+60 mins)

So Prague had 3 hours and 50 minutes extra session time, but two plenaries.

London (March 2014)

Mon 9.00am - 7.50pm (+50 mins)
Tue 9.00am - 6.40pm (+50 mins)
Wed 9.00am - 8.20pm (+70 mins)
Thu 9.00am - 8.40pm (+130 mins)
Fri 9.00am - 1.20pm (+60 mins)

And London had 6 hours extra session time, but also an extra plenary.

So we do seem to have cut down on overall meeting time by shifting to a 10am start, having not recovered the time ‘lost’ to one plenary. And our meeting has 6 hours less session time than we had in London for IETF 89.  (And that is a Friday’s worth…)

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email