Re: Proposed IETF 95 date change
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 06 August 2012 19:15 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@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 24EAF11E80EE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.670, BAYES_05=-1.11, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p5uHyg0kmfs7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA1111E80ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (wlan196.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.196]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 189A3829B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 15:11:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36923CA952 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 20:43:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF 95 date change
In-reply-to: <501AC4A8.9050203@concordia.ca>
References: <501AC4A8.9050203@concordia.ca>
Comments: In-reply-to John William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> message dated "Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:19:20 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:43:47 -0400
Message-ID: <27150.1344041027@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 Aug 2012 19:15:50 -0000
>>>>> "John" == John William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> writes: John> It's not clear to me which is less desirable, starting on John> Easter day, or finishing on Good Friday. Both are important John> from the Christian perspective. However, for a significant John> part of the IETF membership, neither Easter nor Good Friday is John> important. My vote would be to leave it where it is. It's not the "holiday" that is important, it's the congestion at the airport that concerns me. Either week accomodates travelling on the Saturday of easter weekend, as being the possible "out". I am not clear if we even know where it will be. -- Michael Richardson -on the airplane-
- Proposed IETF 95 date change John William Atwood
- Re: Proposed IETF 95 date change Michael Richardson