Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 16 May 2018 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1995412D952 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.403
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w0VV46ZpaSBT for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B3EC127275 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l12-v6so2179376oth.6 for <>; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=u+UN+XxGexEb50U3RCI5Jri7xCig0kPhFkWILTRSQvY=; b=so3XZbfwqdmsYVrwnNKoFNPt/Wh8djMuEvwfpsPrKUXUUMcw4eDY7ANGXh366Wl5Hh 9r9RQwUCbxj1je8xOxK/9VjfqUBrdqfKv2U/xvyJH88EnN8iCJCLHotDKUCdyeq9Obfg 2My2HXAmTtZbrEwHrp7BuRIwKwVTfhiFTkR0pQv1weVB0ZokuhJtkg7Qg6rFBb13wVtm sIf3lQoDpSWSdPMv9pW4qZJ7P8fw20ftnU4tmvtpgeuf22ULKjSlBuq4tI/Il+fbE9YN CHxTngDrZQvaxKREVEbrXK4AOIrkaRI/y2IEP0Hd4Wc6dStAr5m3bRS+qinXMD62KLu7 vCGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u+UN+XxGexEb50U3RCI5Jri7xCig0kPhFkWILTRSQvY=; b=JdzLEU6jldX98JIlPuNCaawogyk+UQ+5N8n4zn2rl8YfqDlwwwPHM/JRg1+HK66oFO FgHL6uIzcjmvCYmR63tIsfMAIvJoctXefezj3kMLbYpF715LP22owIuHENfqBLIsATG0 NcS72yReC4Pkz9p2a6Gbj7pJMUEl00SRPshCLxTxqeKpGQbPHXUVgmqF4zdE4FafDwem +0pHN568Ux4WWb4N+yYyP0OaXlt/Hx9Ba5gm+jK6/hyD4/p+/+DpxtbdL2hAiFn8m+4j 5xqYpfpdhGYhoBtw5MotXyIU7wjsc2T6c6G04dSlDDzm7tpmzd/jbQC7ep+P/QStA9eH r7WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwe7Dn1v0uOgXRvcQcTlfasuNr1m9hgbf5CclyFfc+eY8FBVA8ni QHEc0udjjG3aaz6/iYjxVQr1wNwWRlaDwTVcUCE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrzB3T4Z4dk1UKH47i0P3r0RNBYdw61hV+tLtICtErzpbuvFuxmmjXSb2IXwV8jeow5PByQWZIls801fSrPFr0=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:330e:: with SMTP id f14-v6mr1539047otc.218.1526497466599; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:23:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 15:04:25 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rX2hjV1E8CsKKLi4uAL6PN1iGL4
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003f4f71056c5763ac"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 19:04:30 -0000

I don't see the same problem with things sliding into Thursday because I
expect to be in a meeting at 6pm on the Thursday or 8pm if there isn't the
social that evening.

It is quite important to continue the official meeting through Friday
however because if I am going to have discussions, I want them to be under
Note Well.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Alissa Cooper <> wrote:

> Thanks all for the feedback thus far. I have a few personal observations
> to share (not sure if the rest of the IESG would agree with these or not).
> It is indeed difficult to experiment with both the shortened week and more
> unstructured time at once without changing up the agenda too drastically.
> Personally I had been in favor of experimenting with just ending the
> meeting on Thursday evening, but the feeling in the IESG was that there
> would be certain groups of people who might take advantage of the ability
> to schedule ad hoc meetings on the Friday. This is easy enough to
> experiment with, so it will be interesting to see what happens (and also
> interesting to see if there is a slippery slope that extends into Thursday
> as Christer described). We also discussed future experiments with
> unstructured time mid-week and we’re working on agenda proposals of that
> sort, so I hope this can be viewed as the beginning of the experimentation,
> not the end.
> There are a few different vectors for enforcing “agenda discipline,” so to
> speak. This proposal focuses on the length of WG sessions and will involve
> some days running longer than they have in the past (to the point about
> “cramming” more sessions in). But certainly focusing on the number of WG
> sessions is also possible independently or together with reduction in
> session lengths. This has come up before and could be fodder for future
> experiments.
> Regarding the hackathon timing, one trend we’ve observed is that we have
> people who live near enough to the meeting site that they are able to join
> the hackathon precisely because it is on the weekend and does not interfere
> with work or school time. These folks tend to be new(er) to the IETF (and
> the hackathon) so this provides them with some valuable exposure and
> cross-pollination with the IETF crowd without requiring extensive travel
> and time away from day job. This isn’t a reason to never move it to
> different days but was one reason to keep it where it is while we
> experiment with other changes.
> Understanding how attendees feel about conflicts would indeed be useful,
> altough I suspect generic feedback (“I keep having to miss 5 WGs where I’m
> a contributor due to conflicts”) would be more helpful than specific
> feedback about particular WG clashes at a particular meeting, since there
> will always be some conflicts for some people as long as we have multiple
> WG meetings scheduled at once in the agenda. We can think about how to
> incorporate a question in the post-meeting survey.
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> On May 11, 2018, at 9:07 AM, IETF Chair <> wrote:
> The IESG will experiment with a new agenda structure at IETF 103. We will
> be running working group meetings Monday to Thursday, November 5-8, only.
> There will be no working group meetings on Friday, November 9. A variety of
> facilities will be available for ad hoc meetings on Friday, including some
> breakout rooms available until 13:30 and the Code Lounge until 15:00.
> Participants will be able to sign up to use ad hoc meeting space on Friday
> starting when we open up WG scheduling for IETF 103.
> The motivations for this experiment are twofold. First, with the growth of
> the IETF Hackathon, the IETF meeting week is getting very long for a larger
> number of people. This is affecting even people who do not attend the
> Hackathon, because other pre-meeting events are now being scheduled prior
> to the Hackathon. Second, we would like to provide more unstructured time
> for IETF participants. Given that 20-25% of working groups typically
> request not to be scheduled on Friday already, we will be experimenting
> with more unstructured time on Friday.
> While running this experiment we will still be able to accommodate our
> usual number of working group scheduling requests, in part by offering a
> larger number of shorter slots. There will be no 2.5-hour slots in the
> meeting session request tool; 2 hours will be the longest slot available
> for sign-up. WG chairs who want a slot that is longer than 2 hours will be
> encouraged to check the ‘Other’ box in the list of slot lengths in the
> meeting request tool and explain in the text box that they would like a
> longer slot. We will be able to combine slots on some days and in some
> meeting rooms to provide longer slots for WGs that need them. (This is
> basically just a reversal of the current default, where WG chairs already
> can indicate that they are willing to split their slot with another WG).
> We will be collecting feedback about this experiment via the meeting
> survey. You will also be welcome to send feedback directly to
> or by speaking with IESG members at the meeting.
> Alissa Cooper
> on behalf of the IESG