RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 13 May 2018 15:25 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 317D3126C22; Sun, 13 May 2018 08:25:50 -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 JdbCHcDyYIfu; Sun, 13 May 2018 08:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (unknown [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB731243F6; Sun, 13 May 2018 08:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1fHssa-000Ms6-PF; Sun, 13 May 2018 11:25:44 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 11:25:39 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
Message-ID: <46881575D8716155C71E14F7@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <3678CC52-1F1B-4B17-8654-E75C9B63AD39@ietf.org> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B043AE7@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kjhk6p_nIK4tyoHLe7sZ0_jGT0w>
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: Sun, 13 May 2018 15:25:50 -0000
--On Sunday, 13 May, 2018 13:20 +0000 Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote: > IMHO, no meeting on Friday doesn't really facilitate more > unstructured discussion as most people will book flight > leaving on Friday if no meeting is scheduled on Friday. It is > much more effective to facilitate more unstructured discussion > if less sessions are scheduled per day, longer break time, > etc. such as morning sessions start later, say 10am (giving > people time to have morning informal discussions), longer > lunch break or session break in afternoon. Linda, I've always hated Friday sessions and believe that the decision to expand into Friday, rather than saying "this is all we have time for and we need to prioritize meeting schedules, approval of WGs, and the threshold for shutting down WGs that are not making progress accordingly". Part of my reason is that people who are anxious to get home before the weekend will leave Thursday night or Friday anyway, resulting in a very different profile of participants on Friday that earlier in the week. Another part, probably more important, is the observation that, for people who are really participating actively, four very long and intense days (even without intense tutorials and side-meetings on Sunday) are burned out. I have vivid memories of Friday IAB and IESG wrap-up sessions in which most people could do little more than sit around and stare at each other. More opportunities for informal interactions are clearly part of that story, but I don't believe that trying to push them into Friday is the solution, especially if one sees the problem as IESG inability to prioritize. john
- Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Ban… IETF Chair
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Linda Dunbar
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Paul Wouters
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Jared Mauch
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Loa Andersson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Adam Roach
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Adam Roach
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Wes Hardaker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Christer Holmberg
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Hardie
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… George Michaelson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Warren Kumari
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… János Farkas
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Janos Farkas
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Daniel Harkins
- 答复: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)