Re: 10 a.m.

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 11 July 2016 13:36 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 BBE0112D0FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:36:31 -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 FYzgrPcO-67h for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:36:31 -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 26E15128E18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.234] (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 u6BDb2if018942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:37:03 -0700
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <a07ed680-9884-9a06-df9a-01fff911de9f@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:36:22 +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: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ltbLInKzMeER70N2jjkD3VJgY1M>
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 13:36:32 -0000

On 7/11/2016 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.


An hour here, and evening there, half-a-day next...

I'll suggest that this ought to be part of a basic discussion about the 
overall time budget for the entire week.

For example, there were some comments when Bits n' Bites was first 
proposed that the week was already over-full with IETF activities and 
that taking a way one more evening with a scheduled activity was 
actually counter-productive.

In spite of being a community that must do its engineering based on 
fundamental resource constraints -- this was, after all, an essential 
motivation for inventing packet-switching -- we schedule our week with 
little consideration of trade-offs and limitations.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net