Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities)

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 18 April 2017 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926A6127A97 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ItRoj_5scL3J for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85FEE127873 for <>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6337ABE55; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:34:02 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WyaNvIgKvJDW; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:34:01 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEF08BE3E; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:34:00 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1492551241; bh=wYa2MXtMWxZ0k238MPAYzLD/dHxC7oqQnRyP1lk8SoY=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hsiGadLgCux082Fof442GuwIuuya228hF8A0+uXl3b9nvzhzaeQk5cooyoNwXKvlH CfslYYpGYk/q9qR5yPVEQwql7d0XOeBbY2roPvy1lE0lM137rBgedWk5zbfCYXRu4K a2EFJWIOeY8wePDMJYFcrqNGqJu02G54uU7gPJ7o=
Subject: Structure of IETF meeting weeks (was: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities)
To: Toerless Eckert <>, Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <> <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:34:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GQIWDSwUfcS5408ah2PsPmAVvjGktK7dp"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:34:08 -0000


On 18/04/17 22:22, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> For example, there is a lot of death by powerpoint in meetings that pushes off
> high bandwidth discussions ("oh, we're out of time"). AFAIK, most active work
> on drafts during IETF meeting week happens outside of the WG meetings. I think that
> a) was not the original plan, and b) i have not seen IAOC sending around questionaires
> what/how to improve the quality of the meetings in this respect.

I agree with the criticism, but not sure I agree about surveys being
the best next step.

One suggestion I made before I exited the IESG was that we consider
changing (or experimenting with) how the meeting week is structured,
for example, only having formal WG sessions in the afternoons, and
leaving the full mornings free for hackathons or informal meetings.
(Partly, that's because I hate getting out of bed early, which sadly
was not considered sufficient justification:-)

Anyway, I think it'd be good if the IESG/IAOC encouraged experiments
in such ways of organising ourselves when loads of us do end up in
one place for a week or so.