Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Assuming, of course, that we continue to expect that the IESG will "do the 
right thing, whatever that turns out to be" ...

>>>>>> "Henk" == Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]> writes:
>    Henk> So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 
> 7
>    Henk> or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the 
> other
>    Henk> 4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done 
> by
>    Henk> Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the 
> week,
>    Henk> and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.
>
> I think this is the best idea.

I agree with this - front-load the BOFs, but not to the point where they 
collide with related BOFs ("do the right thing, whatever that turns out to 
be" ...)

> If the rooms for the BOFs are clearly identified, then we can also
> easily give the BOFs 1hr slots rather than the 2.5 hour slots that
> occurs most mornings.

My understanding of what BOFs are supposed to do, is that WG-forming BOFs 
should be demonstrating that there is a group of people who will do the work 
described in a proposed charter, and that they roughly agree that the 
proposed charter describes what they want to do.

If that's so, we should rarely have a WG-forming BOF that runs over an 
hour - and if THAT'S so, it will be easier to schedule BOFs early in the 
week without colliding with other BOFs.

The "bunch of people get together and talk" kind of BOF don't need to be so 
constrained on time - I'm focused on WG-forming BOFs when I say this.

Thanks,

Spencer