IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 16 May 2018 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 3490B12EB1B; Tue, 15 May 2018 17:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1PBiIRPRVx_K; Tue, 15 May 2018 17:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B59E112EB08; Tue, 15 May 2018 17:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36A6F268C2; Tue, 15 May 2018 17:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
References: <3678CC52-1F1B-4B17-8654-E75C9B63AD39@ietf.org> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <B0824E35-23D5-4836-8D1B-423830F3E6A8@nohats.ca> <6dc1e452-2168-a00e-fb2b-d48a46aa895d@pi.nu> <36fab0bc-ef5d-070a-be86-9d0d74d95ceb@gmail.com> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <dd0bacae-290b-ad23-cdbf-8c159462c436@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:09:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: <dd0bacae-290b-ad23-cdbf-8c159462c436@nostrum.com> (Adam Roach's message of "Mon, 14 May 2018 15:51:52 -0500")
Message-ID: <yblin7oihqz.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a7oFHfly-l0mXWGv2IwUCtvgzzU>
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: Wed, 16 May 2018 00:09:10 -0000

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> writes:

> I have yet to see any comments on the fact that we have O(30) working
> groups ask not to be scheduled on Fridays every single meeting. One of
> my personal hopes for this experiment is that we learn whether we can
> avoid these requests (and the consequent scheduling complications,
> which are non-trivial) by simply removing the broadly unwanted Friday
> slots from consideration altogether.

Or the other option is to simply overbook ourselves from M-Th.  Which
would people prefer?

1) Give in to the longer and longer IETF sessions as we need to get
   there earlier and earlier.  [It's certainly hitting me personally.]

2) Having *and attending* meetings on Friday

3) Or cramming more sessions in during the rest of the week (e.g.,
   throwing out the social and Tuesday and the Meet-n-greet on Thursday)
   and having an additional slots then?

It's all weighted choices with no good answer, of course.  Don't shoot
the questioner please :-)
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email