Re: Side meetings experiment continuation for Singapore
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 23 October 2017 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 EBD7E13F3A9
for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
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 dbeQv9H3TBhk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca
[IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA961389A0
for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247])
by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF32200C5;
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:58:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1])
by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA72680D54;
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
cc: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Side meetings experiment continuation for Singapore
In-Reply-To: <F57A7894-7E68-443A-A54C-D9E5FFD4FA44@gmail.com>
References: <F57A7894-7E68-443A-A54C-D9E5FFD4FA44@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;
<'$9xN5Ub#
z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:58:09 -0400
Message-ID: <30754.1508770689@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UHwu9uMhszKiz6dCYqqPFffX2h0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 23 Oct 2017 14:58:12 -0000
Thank you for the well done Q/A format.
> P.S.: There was also discussion on whether the bar has become too high for
> BoFs, and this is the side effect of that. I think that is a separate
> discussion we need to have as a community unrelated to this experiment.
But also that the week has too many official sessions and this leaves little
time for the hallway and truly informal bar-bof (in the bar!) gatherings that
need to occur before a proper BOF can be organized.
I was asked to evangelize my idea of giving every WG a 1HR slot with full
conflict list (early in the week), and additional time with no conflict
guarantees to the routing area. The reception was luke warm I think.
I also don't think that it can be done in one area only because it requires
that we plan a lot more 1hr slots early in the week.
What I'm saying is that the demand we are seeing for side-meetings (and the
problems success brings) are really the knock-on results of our over-busy
schedule.
{will be attending IETF100 remotely}
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- Side meetings experiment continuation for Singapo… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Side meetings experiment continuation for Sin… Michael Richardson