Re: [Manycouches] [irsg] IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jay,

You make a fair point the data we have so far seems to
back up the arrangement planned for IETF109.

On 19/10/2020 21:19, Jay Daley wrote:
> - Sessions for existing working groups 		43.66% 38.05% 12.06% 4.99% 1.25% 		1.82

Without questioning that though, I'd point out a couple of
things (that kinda do question that a bit for the longer
term:-)...

- Re-reading the survey question it could be read to mean
"43.66% of respondents want a week with the plenary etc.
and want sufficient sessions for existing WGs" but that
it mightn't quite mean they want all those in the same
week. As you say to Brian though, that seems a bit of a
stretch, at the time the question was answered.
- It could be that we've learned that neither of the setups we've tried
work so well - 107 did the stretched over a few
weeks thing, 108 did the compressed week thing. I guess
asking more about this topic after 109 would be a good
plan, that you probably already have in hand.
- It could be that people's tolerance of conference calls
is dropping over time (mine is, I admit;-) so preferences
may also change as the pandemic proceeds.
- And there're the points I made in the other mail I
sent on this earlier.

So, despite the survey, I do think Adrian's question is
worth discussing. I'm not arguing to change 109 at all
btw, just having a discussion in the light of what we've
learned in the meantime, and considering longer term stuff
for 110 and beyond.

Cheers,
S.