Return-Path: 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 C45E012D1C0 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 Y1TACtoK4Klv for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D8DF12D18B for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f6so74155502lfg.0 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zo2yxA8+8G2zCZQn/xdRHMLcBtgD88f3VxDue5mmN+0=; b=PSpS/Sky/GBwmZ7C1v9OMyb49Af+s5HgGd71DGqp1ixuQh2Z95jL9OMA30U4m9Aocf 2DuhmURQIcBWi1bdo2/GopkS9NwKwkIpIeawpZ+GcGhNIGBxWxmVqh3ilF/GnLeA4E8o 6ej/0uRyLODL2zejoxRUzeqJCZb/e8Ru7Fd9I7dykj4rIxLMWkkkZK0ffxpOnjm22AHi L7jWkjR9KbuLM1YrE+ihx1gaizqt5erqPGvd+cFL8HFurqzVKdv0bjpU/vL3oQYVxeHv NSn6BPB/ZRb4B4HfYd3MviZdntzjz6JozzrVhuQ3hQWT4wdbXN/nBjWyhWiIfCEshK3x BF4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zo2yxA8+8G2zCZQn/xdRHMLcBtgD88f3VxDue5mmN+0=; b=isCYe9satVpwxlqJC5QJEqW/GwZBAjCQ6r2MCqrqJauK0PtqQHgIsQlmpmo1Lyu30z XtZu+Zbv9QcnVtxzEjpqch4g9f0aj+7RbIEtlIsFdVlpc/87BnINACFyNOVEPhJHPVuN J9pyU73YolrWqq/uyCFKBCJLjU+Xu++0O/m0lRnev72PmM5cbgAaKLFdHJVtz7zSSBFd DJL+CRgzEKPHnvVRRmWEusw1e6rXWV1MIKBFOhgm903NsTCZnWqH+crVFzqXbnc5m4oI Dc3xTt3BDND7DlPbynYAj2CDuLdzzDj4RtWdO1iIwoKL91RVaUr9v3SoBiIxfOL4aHN1 F1Ng== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK+u8M46fugLk2npb2MsncNLDFT9do549/LIiPIs9yNQqoO1z7XUp5G5+yXTbacmOt8rW5g1F9MT5dYAQ== X-Received: by 10.46.33.13 with SMTP id h13mr4796036ljh.41.1468245298583; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:54:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.217.219 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:54:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5EA6A07F-EE58-4F39-8502-A4FA1282E954@ecs.soton.ac.uk> From: Ted Lemon Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:54:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 10 a.m. To: Tim Chown Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142b4c07722ab05375c7f97 Archived-At: Cc: IETF discussion list X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:55:03 -0000 --001a1142b4c07722ab05375c7f97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My experience of this was that I heard at the plenary that it was popular and that we would try it again, but did not hear a proposal for when (although I may be misremembering that). And then when I found out about it on the agenda, it was news to me. And I'd bought my tickets assuming a 9am meeting start time and assuming I wouldn't be able to make the last meeting on Friday, and then realized I wouldn't be able to stay for the whole first meeting either. So on the one hand, I think this was pre-discussed. But on the other hand, the messaging wasn't sufficiently effective _for me_. I just looked in the registration announcement and the "meeting information" announcement, and there's nothing there. The first I noticed it was when I looked at the preliminary agenda. I am painfully well acquainted with the vicissitudes of IESG life, so I feel it would be churlish to point fingers, but I will say that if we do this again, the information should be at the top of both those announcements in large, friendly letters. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Hi, > > I share Brian=E2=80=99s concern on this. > > On 11 Jul 2016, at 14:10, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Brian, > > In Buenos Aires, the dinner times are substantially later and the schedul= e > was > adjusted to accommodate local conditions. There was a lot of positive > feedback > about the later starting time. > > > Was this one of the questions in the post-meeting survey, and if so what > was the result? > > I'm sure you remember the Paris meeting where the IETF tried a different > evening > schedule & it was very popular. > > So, in response to the feedback and as an experiment, the starting time i= s > later. > I believe Alexa included that this was an experiment in announcements. > > > I=E2=80=99m not against experiments, but I don=E2=80=99t recall any open = list discussion > on conducting it, which would have been nice to have, or did that happen? > > Tim > > Regards, > Alia > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Where do I find the discussion and subsequent rough consensus to switch >> the >> starting time of the IETF f2f meeting days to 10 a.m.? >> >> As far as I'm concerned that is a big mistake, wasting an hour every day >> and making it (even more) difficult to relax in the evenings. >> >> (If there is some local peculiarity in Buenos Aires and Berlin that make= s >> this more practical, it would be interesting to know.) >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> > > --001a1142b4c07722ab05375c7f97 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My experience of this was that I heard at the plenary that= it was popular and that we would try it again, but did not hear a proposal= for when (although I may be misremembering that). =C2=A0 And then when I f= ound out about it on the agenda, it was news to me. =C2=A0 And I'd boug= ht my tickets assuming a 9am meeting start time and assuming I wouldn't= be able to make the last meeting on Friday, and then realized I wouldn'= ;t be able to stay for the whole first meeting either.

S= o on the one hand, I think this was pre-discussed. =C2=A0 But on the other = hand, the messaging wasn't sufficiently effective _for me_. =C2=A0 I ju= st looked in the registration announcement and the "meeting informatio= n" announcement, and there's nothing there. =C2=A0 The first I not= iced it was when I looked at the preliminary agenda.

I am painfully well acquainted with the vicissitudes of IESG life, so I = feel it would be churlish to point fingers, but I will say that if we do th= is again, the information should be at the top of both those announcements = in large, friendly letters.


On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Tim C= hown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi,

I share Brian= =E2=80=99s concern on this.

On 11 Jul 2016, at 14:10, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
<= br>
Brian,

In Buenos Aires, the din= ner times are substantially later and the schedule was
adjusted t= o accommodate local conditions.=C2=A0 There was a lot of positive feedback= =C2=A0
about the later starting time.

Was this one of the questions in the post-meeting = survey, and if so what was the result?

I'm sure you remember t= he Paris meeting where the IETF tried a different evening
schedul= e & it was very popular. =C2=A0

So, in respons= e to the feedback and as an experiment, the starting time is later.
I believe Alexa included that this was an experiment in announcements.

I=E2=80=99m not aga= inst experiments, but I don=E2=80=99t recall any open list discussion on co= nducting it, which would have been nice to have, or did that happen?
<= span class=3D"HOEnZb">

Tim

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Brian E Ca= rpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Where do I find the discussion and subsequent rough consensus to switch the=
starting time of the IETF f2f meeting days to 10 a.m.?

As far as I'm concerned that is a big mistake, wasting an hour every da= y
and making it (even more) difficult to relax in the evenings.

(If there is some local peculiarity in Buenos Aires and Berlin that makes this more practical, it would be interesting to know.)

Regards
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Brian




--001a1142b4c07722ab05375c7f97--