IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Saturday as start day

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 21 June 2017 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 AC91412702E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 o0FYsoH0CMqR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB72A1294CF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v5LE1D1S003481; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:01:13 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk v5LE1D1S003481
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1498053674; bh=jVAKply6a5YdP3enuMKNwOmmcAg=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=FMWrql6hTzest6JtIrxPp0sEKkUOWi2QXroYVEQrPq/YK3vi7EXKijs+rrad8+yAP SFQzoJs3z62aNikBdKbBg/snLeuqVgejq0vxqRkjlX+A8KlHPYZZo5U03kxI/6d8UT zZSJNlwksgaDAGWaKBJNlTLeuM5STJbVp7t6Z+Cw=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id y5KF1D2961306636BK ret-id none; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:01:14 +0100
Received: from jntlt005491.atlas.ukerna.ac.uk (d7test.company.ja.net [193.62.83.225]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v5LE18KN028309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:01:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Saturday as start day
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2F62C85D-07BE-4F39-86AC-0BDD2F7C7825@lucidvision.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:01:08 +0100
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|82a11207572e527158717bcf8b4445f0y5KF1D03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4A92ADFA-3605-4837-BF23-0D0F30C991F9@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <63406DFB-217A-4306-B717-E86D97BA2AA9@cooperw.in> <709494B2-53ED-4483-9B1C-3855D81CD120@gmail.com> <a6ceaa2d-16fa-6145-bd2d-811dba6027ea@huitema.net> <2F62C85D-07BE-4F39-86AC-0BDD2F7C7825@lucidvision.com> <4A92ADFA-3605-4837-BF23-0D0F30C991F9@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=y5KF1D296130663600; tid=y5KF1D2961306636BK; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: v5LE1D1S003481
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vwSOgBrBd5XwxYazhUH7E2I-VIo>
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:01:32 -0000

> On 21 Jun 2017, at 14:56, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> wrote:
> 
> 	It can also pose interesting issues pertaining to travel.

If it’s purely a change to help people get visas and travel approval to attend Saturday events, esp. the hackathon, great. No-one’s travel plans are changed, I think?

If WG meetings start creeping into the weekend, I’d agree!

Tim

> 
> 	—Tom
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2017:9:53 AM, at 9:53 AM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/21/2017 5:46 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> 
>>> Alissa,
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Based on a suggestion from Paul Hoffman, the IESG believes it would be beneficial to denote the official start of IETF meetings to be on Saturday rather than Sunday, starting with IETF 100. We believe this would be sensible given that events such as the hackathon and code sprint start on Saturday, and may make it easier for some participants to get travel approval to attend those events. This change would be reflected in the dates posted on the IETF web site and sent out in email announcements. We are not proposing any changes in terms of the scheduling of any meeting-related events, the full availability of the meeting network starting on Sunday, the opening of on-site registration, or the meeting fee.
>>>> 
>>> I think this is a fine idea, essentially formalizing what has happened informally.  I suspect once in effect it will push the network to be deployed earlier, but given current Saturday events, that was also probably going to happen at some point.
>> Matching reality is always a fine idea. But there might be a problem
>> with that reality...
>>>> If you have feedback about this change, please send it to ietf@ietf.org, or exceptionally to iesg@ietf.org, by July 5, 2017.
>> The problem is that we now are expected to have work going non stop from
>> Saturday to Friday. 7 full days. Maybe I am just old, but that does not
>> look healthy.
>> 
>> -- Christian Huitema
>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email