Re: [Manycouches] IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2020 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F43F3A08E7; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.445
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 biMl5p_BypK3; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C4AD3A08E3; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id p3so424646pjd.0; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=na/prHwCwqqI8TrHuTNH5RtfSCMl/2i78PkrNIS171g=; b=pXDKXRJxbLFhYELljMO5Pviu+mK2kj0UR6ntfG8wnTSUpuRK3sYGNCwoEI0Dp1uG1a qbSGFayeynr9n5Hn9b6yja/3lU1VosqL3EK4I1oivsrxJdxb547i69CMiQ1QdI2OfMzT e+kAXCKv1rm4HK6KmamDwdjQge24drRKDz0l/i6g8Umk3BnqcIrdGoxjXLvGasMO5x6N DkCLtT5MfQWV9XJJrFSCF96L2vOKQyPHxIVr2sT/R9fdOjAeUPW59c22h8ChtyuTulSh WPGn2AhVgGhXnXf2Icc0Czvbs7Fdh9oSmhnO6qTG+eeR2Phv+fYvUW4VKEGcGwV4a5z8 gzSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=na/prHwCwqqI8TrHuTNH5RtfSCMl/2i78PkrNIS171g=; b=CkATGQXbJi4m84r0b3EhSHv/2MKPdjvzDwAgaVsmVBliVRmW0Gaij0qiJgyAJFl4B4 FkXY9J8RbwBAXjzw5FFvMEYQiWAMMQaDqB+f2Ip0JGyczdPNlMdsAb+FDd+M6pxYrHyc SNlrUZW6d6iI2UtdJS+0ZPe9py2ob/DB6v5pDI2O7BxWyYnv00xvDNMAnZ9upNuZhqAM MCUwNChHvLT50I7JuFazUJM0rXZ5fRNCv4IqyTt3CxuZdHgjhQqQ8mXqeD5e+IVPqGmk C1SOFtfnMfjLICEBYxT57u1quWoN5wsUV+i9r16WTO1Hc9I+24DpCJdyzYrF44ndrplM xj5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ggFJos9amao7BdgI6z8lzPRt5cZUNR18RHiSLrcaHT4O8pls8 FefiBg3quBQeIhfg9mwakTw+qFk2bcKeYA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoVXrg7NEMREGn057IetX6Lj23/i3Y5iRUQZy+SVSlnfwueYIjUKkJ9kekhSjg6OHcxGBSWg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7284:b029:d5:e92b:fe67 with SMTP id d4-20020a1709027284b02900d5e92bfe67mr1593970pll.44.1603139206017; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.132.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j4sm633174pfd.101.2020.10.19.13.26.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: manycouches@ietf.org
References: <160288855079.14008.13967692974159638979@ietfa.amsl.com> <30344.1602894208@localhost> <FD995870-E9C6-4099-93AF-253F0A11F56B@tzi.org> <CADaq8jcKK5kUvU3v7+6gEaeqjqxtw-Bii5is_hoq1ugogCoWPg@mail.gmail.com> <20201017193610.GA39170@kduck.mit.edu> <CADaq8je4nFVKkGw3X+Yo53N1xaXrgNRvOw4ZaNA0mT3dsDi-kQ@mail.gmail.com> <31255.1603126883@localhost> <058701d6a648$998eb150$ccac13f0$@olddog.co.uk> <E56FE404-3922-4BD8-B386-F6DD705389E4@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <4322f54d-a93c-3956-b337-2d7b06f6cebc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:26:41 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E56FE404-3922-4BD8-B386-F6DD705389E4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/UxkudRLY76IMkCaRFkjwU-jOxYo>
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: manycouches@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List is a design team list to identify issues that would arise should an IETF meeting ever be held with O\(1000\) 'remote' participants." <manycouches.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/>
List-Post: <mailto:manycouches@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:26:48 -0000

> Of course the sessions for existing working groups are the bulk of the sessions

One could argue that those are the meetings that least need to be in a specified
magic week, since they could be held any time. BOFs, initial meetings, and traditionally plenary events can clearly all benefit from a global schedule.

Regards
   Brian

On 20-Oct-20 09:19, Jay Daley wrote:
> Adrian
> 
>> On 20/10/2020, at 7:49 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> This thread (re-)opens the question of the value of a full virtual meeting.
>>
>> There is unquestionable (to me) value in the plenary session, and a few of
>> the agenda-slot meetings are widely attended.
>>
>> But it seems that the main draw of an in-person meeting is the interactions
>> in the corridors and after people have spoken at agenda sessions. Also the
>> ad hoc gatherings to advance topics. 
>> It seems to me that most/all of this was missing at IETF-108 and is likely
>> to be missing at IETF-109.
>>
>> So what is left between the packed one-week agenda and a sparse three-month
>> schedule of "interims".
>>
>> Maybe the only benefit I can see is that rather than having to be out of bed
>> every week for a poorly-scheduled interim, I can be out of bed for a whole
>> week for the IETF week. I am not sure that is an advantage, especially when
>> weighed against agenda clashes (at IETF-108 I tried listening to multiple
>> audio streams at once, and it fried my poor brain).
>>
>> So I'd like to see a renewed discussion of why we are doing this to
>> ourselves.
> 
> Just a reminder that we have surveyed the community about this
> 
> 	https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/survey-planning-possible-online-meetings-responses.pdf
> 
> One key question was "If an in-person one-week IETF meeting needs to be cancelled then which of the following options do you prefer?", which elicited the following responses (p20):
> 
> - Replace it with a combination of an online meeting with a set agenda and virtual interims				36.15% 	184
> - Replace it with an online meeting with a set agenda (format to be decided)						29.47% 	150
> - Ask WGs/RGs to schedule virtual interims when and how they want								14.54% 	74
> - Ask WGs/RGs to schedule virtual interims following rules about when and how (rules to be decided)	9.82% 	50
> - Don't know																			5.11% 	26
> - Do nothing and defer until the next in-person meeting											2.95% 	15
> - Other (please specify)																	1.96% 	10
>  
> 
> It might be argued that an online meeting with just a plenary meets the top two results above, but then a further question asks "If an online IETF meeting is scheduled, then how important is it for each of the following to be included?", which elicited the following responses (p26):
> 
> (From L-R: Very important, Important, Neutral, Not important, Not at all important, Score (lower score is more important))
> 
> - Sessions for existing working groups 		43.66% 38.05% 12.06% 4.99% 1.25% 		1.82
> - Sessions for new working groups			39.02% 39.91% 16.19% 2.66% 2.22% 		1.89
> - BOFs 								38.12% 36.32% 21.08% 2.24% 2.24% 		1.94
> - Sessions for proposed research groups	19.48% 36.15% 34.27% 6.81% 3.29% 		2.38
> - Sessions for existing research groups		19.25% 34.51% 36.38% 7.28% 2.58% 		2.39
> - Plenary session 						21.81% 28.19% 31.28% 13.88% 4.85% 	2.52
> - Side meetings 						14.99% 29.98% 32.08% 13.11% 9.84% 	2.73
> - Newcomers’ events					13.00% 28.25% 34.00% 12.00% 12.75% 	2.83
> - Technical tutorials 					11.14% 20.54% 40.35% 17.33% 10.64%	2.96
> - HotRFC								9.49% 19.49% 41.79% 15.64% 13.59% 	3.04
> - Office hours							5.34% 22.90% 39.95% 20.10% 11.70%		3.10
> - Hackathon 							6.73% 20.20% 40.65% 19.70% 12.72% 	3.11
> - Codesprint 							3.20% 12.00% 48.27% 20.27% 16.27%		3.34
> - Host Speaker Series 					5.85% 15.78% 35.11% 21.12% 22.14%		3.38
> - Systers Networking 					4.68% 10.23% 47.95% 15.20% 21.93%		3.39
> - Social event 							4.99% 8.48% 23.44% 20.95% 42.14%		3.87
> 
> Of course the sessions for existing working groups are the bulk of the sessions.
> 
> Jay
> 
>