Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2083A6938; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:42:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UXIt042PVjtk; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2753B3A6934; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwb7 with SMTP id 7so4351925qwb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:42:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iT6xs+T1GMKljrYClJELrEY4K+b7YEzo4rQuS+Yfaa4=; b=HPYiUap60pTlNUNasybp7oqNFeu/3oGmqooeJkDNQxcNUptq4kHaM9SyulAjmF98k0 8bIlreDphFAHxSQCBQN1PXFV7yliQxbiC7nAqylWUAHZILsNscR3FggCQuJJhwDYEQAn zc+8+Yq8/fqupyS8s7jld3ARMp4B+/xOylmJE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wWbNRPxc+g91E2wD4RiyauAjSQXG3UFBpiCDDbIILIfknYlwLxNVT7ErqWrRL4N8zP nbbMjiJ/OV3nZVC1AIuNSfUy/thrFHBP4OuNgGmCUXl8fC6d7dCzbUuEWKfIxcHq6aYi krXkyK8XMfJgnfn6VNeBpYkO8M9RRJmc+TSg8=
Received: by 10.229.225.199 with SMTP id it7mr4675732qcb.33.1289184157757; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-270a.meeting.ietf.org (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l14sm4210306qck.41.2010.11.07.18.42.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CD76399.9070901@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:42:33 +0800
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 Nov 2010 02:42:19 -0000

On 11/08/2010 10:26 GMT+08:00, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.
> 
> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.

I am in favor of the goals but concerned about conflicts between BOFs.
BOFs explore possible new work items for the IETF, and some decisions
made in BOFs can be significant for the direction of IETF work, and hard
to undo after the fact.  I am more likely to be unhappy about a
scheduling conflict between BOFs than between a BOF and a WG that is
continuing in its ordinary work, so I like having BOFs spread out
through the week.  Have you thought about sensitivity of conflicts, and
if so what were your thoughts?

Scott