IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The Friday Experiment

"Dr. Pala" <madwolf@openca.org> Wed, 14 November 2018 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <madwolf@openca.org>
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 70C69130E99 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 06:42:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_DR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 rFaL5WPP94gr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 06:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.katezarealty.com (mail.katezarealty.com [104.168.158.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A7A130E8F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 06:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.katezarealty.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70CD3740F99; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:42:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at katezarealty.com
Received: from mail.katezarealty.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.katezarealty.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Rr4_sy0G2XZU; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:42:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.70.18.22] (unknown [192.160.73.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.katezarealty.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0B0B37404AB; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:42:18 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Dr. Pala" <madwolf@openca.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 06:47:41 -0700
Message-Id: <013A89A8-9891-446D-B17F-1767C3F52046@openca.org>
Subject: Re: The Friday Experiment
References: <CAA=duU3zuYXH58mpBs0wHDkz6=25At0ekV-1KKM-LTn=68c6WQ@mail.gmail.com> <416D419B-F1B6-4190-9B04-8205CB20F3B3@mnt.se> <CACWOCC_Vnd5SofWTrW+XwvxS5Fb3JUU42ajhbn3WuZGBYiQZbg@mail.gmail.com> <39C93214-7F69-4BA9-AD0A-14B93939B471@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <39C93214-7F69-4BA9-AD0A-14B93939B471@gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16A404)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oQ37z_maBdVTM00wSL09YnuY6Q8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:42:23 -0000

+1

On top of what Kathleen, I also want to add that reading the notes and/or watching the video (which is a great resource) does not allow you to participate in the discussion and provide your humming :-)

Cheers,
Max

> On Nov 10, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I was disappointed by the number of overlapping sessions for security and having to choose between working group sessions that I would have liked to attend.  This did impact some working groups that suffered from light attendance that included having less regular participants.
> 
> When I asked about this, I was told the same number of slots were available, so it was a conflict resolution issue.  Perhaps we need to extend the number of slots when Friday is added back to help with conflicts.
> 
> I will have to read the minutes or watch recorded sessions for a few meetings that I was interested to attend.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen 
> 
> Sent from my mobile device
> 
>> On Nov 10, 2018, at 5:18 AM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I actually liked the approach and would like to encourage the IESG to repeat the experiment a few more times.
>> 
>> Between the normal work week (the week before IETF), traveling to IETF, the hackathon, IEPG, and the IETF meeting itself you’ll easily end up being busy for 12 days in a row. This is not healthy - we owe it to ourselves to foster an environment that encourages rest as much as it encourages working together.
>> 
>> Making the Friday optional (like at IETF103) increases the chances of people getting home for a full weekend of downtime..
>> 
>> I see no risk of “the Thursday becoming the new Friday”, to me the slippery slope argument makes no sense without supporting data.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Job
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email