Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

Behcet Sarikaya <> Tue, 15 May 2018 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8416712D942; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gnUUBIvhCvUp; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1DE012D889; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j186-v6so2405712ita.5; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=HozeKSc48AgHGK4Xvj54slXyulrXqpVidnwagFjtapI=; b=lG083LabFnX5fffGgcUV5cM5+LxtX3MCo0jTARKFG28svsjfTAYom7dC4CaviFYcMQ ABnAbzqvXt6391hOzj95VA7iqUXMEYV5e7imgESFqiv5P4TWXn2/4im7AbqXezErslx7 pUPoYOFmantFyKjdUkHuLIDA+VobJP/RlDIpSQ9WAD22DPN3CiYd2SX5b5IK9fh6lM9T bJn4kjq7xSB4QDVJSqyNcOx9GAT4nIft88QAFgNrxjZb8/aSAXQxU1uimhYA1F+ogule 9+P7vnAoRuYfLaC8TurT4q3HAp1p9tIaT+ud5BQpFSBcUPVndan/i6AVW34vVYTknp9L SF0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HozeKSc48AgHGK4Xvj54slXyulrXqpVidnwagFjtapI=; b=QjedgOz/7AvhXQzaSbh+bbMpbqjrJgU7iPu/SURH0x0ZgLoMoySK4g3YUyX2Llqo7C wFscLW9aGQvspPN1+kRLUc1azvZ0LvjpeThFpWrirQbjXmR2jqDji1kpPtHZywPTuwE/ ErNHHeStB930yNLNFtw69AqPJzihB/U+1ryBeA8+nIy8nCf3aQY4AIi3HNx7YJcHe5hW bDaSENMpstxEbnfKTATRID/iC1pZIbkjQ1tkWJgr8p6/4f6NcPXadoyK0zJGffxG86Jx uGM7X/57h4BiUIokvl9W2dm2uDKieUhDsNPcafba8xqFIXF34cVxVuoRo8/bPQK6s1UR 5U1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweBt+oWwtXhGytjghOmo/sF/U/2NbvQaaBKpTc38MXaZRUmTDQ3 j6MStWPG1pylGrmLHE4QrNyfUw3T0L6YlpAp8js=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZr7cbRV2XXRbUoYE/UxyNnseuo/VhfYc/7zfDBaELcQ4doN8AkWCrKcDDKjexifduItMxtNtJRpPEU46rLyOp8=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:d309:: with SMTP id n9-v6mr14008030itg.29.1526396941065; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <A7FEF9B7DDF04627AC7F6056@PSB> <>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:00 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
To: Adam Roach <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, Stewart Bryant <>, Loa Andersson <>, Paul Wouters <>, Linda Dunbar <>, IETF Chair <>, ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007560fb056c3ffb7a"
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: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:09:08 -0000

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:

> Replying to the thread in general rather than any one message: most of the
> responses so far have been focusing on perceived efficacy of informal
> meetings on Friday (which is good feedback, although I suspect it will be
> better informed after the experiment is run).
> 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.
> I am curious if anyone has thoughts about how this particular scheduling
> difficulty can be addressed beyond what we might learn from the Bangkok
> experiment.
It seems like the experiment will go ahead :-)

My suggestion is:
either treat Friday as a regular work day and put complete scheduling on
that day. I don't think companies treat Fridays special, you work on Friday
like any other day, right?

or completely make it off. Now we are including Saturday in the meeting
days and starting to eat up from the other side to make up for it, isn't
that strange?

Regarding flight times, if the meeting is overseas, airline companies want
you to stay one week, usually from Saturday/Sunday to next Saturday. So in
Bangkok, I am going to have to stay on Friday in order to get a cheaper

Why not get back to the good old Sunday-Friday schedule?


> /a