Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 31 May 2018 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FE412EC50; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxUndHP-ORha; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AEEB12EC08; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7992B20093; Thu, 31 May 2018 12:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id B29582DA9; Thu, 31 May 2018 11:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4C32DA1; Thu, 31 May 2018 11:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FQ=3FJ=3Dc3=3Da1nos=5FFarkas=3F=3D?= <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; 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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 11:56:14 -0400
Message-ID: <10827.1527782174@localhost>
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: Thu, 31 May 2018 15:56:51 -0000

János Farkas <> wrote:
    > I'm afraid IETF 103 may not be the best IETF meeting to experiment with
    > ending the IETF meeting on Thursday.


    > Given the unique opportunity of this November, we have started to investigate
    > the possibility of joint workshops of different groups of the two
    > organizations. I'm aware of two: IETF - IEEE 802 Coordination workshop and
    > DetNet - TSN/IEC workshop, but there may be more.

Maybe some of these things could occur on the Friday?

    > IEEE 802 Plenary meetings start on Monday
    > (

    > Increasing the gap between the two meetings may decrease the participation
    > thus the success of such workshops

So the gap will grow from two days to three days.

I'm not among those who is involved in IEEE802 meetings, but if I were, I
don't think the change would negatively affect my decision to stay: it's not
like I get home a day earlier either way.

(If I were among those who had the time and funding to do both meetings, I
would find the back to back meetings would be a significant dis-incentive to
attend both. I don't think it contributes to cross-fertilization, and I think
that it creates significant family-based barriers to entry)

Having the three day gap might even make the gap easier to enjoy, if one
did bring a family with you.

To me, the only thing that would change this is if we moved the Hackathon to
the weekend afterwards, such that the gap was entirely filled. That would
also potentially mix hackathoners with IETF and IEEE people.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [