IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 10 a.m.

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 11 July 2016 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 5582D12B03B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no 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 SqtDujhj6PCL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (unknown [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83F512B02A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.245] (no-dns-yet.convergencegroup.co.uk [46.255.117.114] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u6BMVqf4007323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:31:55 -0700
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <41f9104e-335f-b2a9-3ca8-9d5b0e7de3b6@gmail.com> <57841CE1.60709@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <1b9ef012-5fb4-15ec-6397-172d7ba92410@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:31:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57841CE1.60709@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iMaOFHiNe0OtFpJk_4zthfeZGN0>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:31:26 -0000

On 7/11/2016 11:25 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Actually, we have won five hours of productive time that can be used by
> small groups to get work done together before going into the WG meetings.


cancel the morning meetings and you can get an added 2.5 hours of 
productivity.  this all suggests a relatively straightforward, logical 
progression for scheduling...

or we could step back and consider the IETF meeting in strategic and 
tactical terms and decide on basic allocations of time and basic 
purposes for them.  /then/ we could decide on such things as start and 
end times.

but debating an hour here or an evening there, as independent decisions, 
seems to be more fun.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email