Re: 10 a.m.

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Yup, if we have to schedule meetings on Friday, starting earlier would be a
happy thing for most everyone, I think.   By that time those of us with jet
lag are probably over it, and Friday is always a weird day at IETF anyway,
since only the die-hards are still there, and everybody is tired.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> ​I think we have rather bigger problems than deciding the start time. But
> the way we have slid into picking the start time is symptomatic of a
> broader problem.
>
> ​I find a large number of WG sessions to be very unproductive because they
> consist of status updates that could be sent in an email or discovered by
> looking at the tracker. What I am interested in is working through the set
> of action items that need discussion.
>
> Yes, cross area work is nice. But I don't think our current format
> achieves that and I am not convinced it is as desirable as people think.
> The purpose of a layers abstraction model is so that people working at one
> particular level only need to consider their own layer and the interfaces
> to the layers above and below them. If something in applications depends on
> something in routing, well something is wrong. And something is really
> wrong if the interfaces between the layers has to shift more than once a
> decade or so.
>
> One major benefit of the new approach is that I can now schedule meetings
> in the mornings before everything else starts. That is especially important
> if you have a 9am Monday meeting and someone isn't going to be at the
> location in fit state till the Monday of the meeting.
>
> Contrawise, I don't see any good reason to delay the start on a Friday. In
> fact I would prefer to start an hour earlier.
>
> So my incremental improvement schedule would be:
>
>
> Mon: 10am
> Tues: 9/10 (slight preference for 9)
> Wed: 9/10 (slight preference for 9)
> Thurs: 9/10 (slight preference for 9)
> Fri: 8 am.
>
>
>
>
>