Re: [Recentattendees] [104all] Further Clarification Re: IETF 104 Preliminary Agenda

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Mon, 25 February 2019 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
X-Original-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6A0130FDA for <recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:56:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
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 M9LBHo53kaHy for <recentattendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc32.google.com (mail-yw1-xc32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32]) (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 52F4F13101B for <recentattendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc32.google.com with SMTP id q128so4212036ywg.8 for <recentattendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:56:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gXUxLKxvDnEBobi6N74nvdAeCVWlFKC43mM4IZQoNRA=; b=WN2I7Bn999kxC9SNHoHoualkWGpmM1TXhZYwEGA80ehJyaJKGapULnNZOGPBEYJJzE pOPr9UUS6fqBtiniBRfTy3wRsQiOc1V6X+XM+EHG10Y5qNAMLlpwv/pYw2LinaNvIyHK q4APgTBIHW/sBujgBghzapyXcChI6wsYa19xk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gXUxLKxvDnEBobi6N74nvdAeCVWlFKC43mM4IZQoNRA=; b=lJBhwdgLv4E9UGG1iXTKvaFxqL0fz9EKeAUen114oJJqeseL4lMVydexK+q4leS+AX ZuaWRWqbkTo9qozBjLPaiEGANxH5nN1PEi/fgk5/URaTmza9UCagie3F4pdojcGQk3Rm QE8tD8CE12bTASnpWxkOtFj+hfzwdCm3whiwwjGoDww0R6tlc7bkurSgWomhAjboi/RZ XLy3vQbgfRA5pEJfOJ5nx8qUTFl70t/v4FLPKivP62Lu8norHEx45zsn05cE98YTQmc2 +pvhTfwps89YYhgiInQSU0gGvpFIBHwLcxzL1jjYlR7VGNjwYU0zl+QrImXUN2Y+wXbm 4KoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub/ffSYhDRs5HT2bP5gp3aLWnUBmsljr5UfuMZgXZejl0izvF6l 6xz/yBFQ8zEg5pSTtulQl23p1D8DCoLvnXHQr41eRA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYosxnIpfXpRsfW7Q/vlZAfpiVxBRPyr4KNhECpcLw2HHNP+VxX7z9Xp6EtHLxOTkXM0hCKM6Sauf5J6hIJEAI=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:a609:: with SMTP id d9mr3273893ywh.17.1551128185238; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:56:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155089851917.5347.209761560453230605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAJU8_nU4r4ZO9URW+cbyP7bZ8h6nx+McXX7iUdG7A5FZtVsriQ@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB36388920F490F854DA4D2970C17A0@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB36388920F490F854DA4D2970C17A0@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:56:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nXJCv_bu_x_yCopcPZbEwQtHGOgAjqhnbxBXn+1JH6CqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, "104all@ietf.org" <104all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007b8ff40582be2c04"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/recentattendees/7VDTjDCwHNkXyw8oV3PFVJ6MXew>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] [104all] Further Clarification Re: IETF 104 Preliminary Agenda
X-BeenThere: recentattendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees <recentattendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/recentattendees>, <mailto:recentattendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/recentattendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:recentattendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:recentattendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees>, <mailto:recentattendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:56:29 -0000

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 3:45 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>;
wrote:

> Kyle –
>
>
>
> It seems to me that your summary has overlooked one key point. As per the
> announcement:
>
>
>
> *<snip>*
>
> *Wednesday's schedule has regular sessions until 13:20, unstructured time
> in the afternoon, and the plenary in the evening at 17:10. This leaves
> almost four hours of unstructured time for attendees to reserve for side
> meetings.*
>
> *<end snip>*
>
>
>
> And part of your response is:
>
>
>
> *<snip>*
>
> *The secretariat can't address the problem of too many (or too long) WG
> sessions,*
>
> *<end snip>*
>
>
>
> Presumably the alternative could have been to have another slot in the
> afternoon on Wednesday for WG meetings – which would have provided more
> flexibility in avoiding conflicts.
>

No contest. I should have listed that as a third issue.


> Without taking sides, I think the question is whether the introduction of
> “unstructured time” is adding or subtracting value.
>

It really seems like we're trying to stuff too much into 5 days. (When you
have 5 lbs of manure and a 4 lbs bag...) Were side meetings in the
mornings, evenings, or during slots without important sessions not working?
Are there groups that really are too busy to skip less important sessions
in favor of collaborative side work? (E.g., there are WGs I *like* to
attend, but when it conflicts with some work I *need* to do, I know where
I'm going to be. These 3 weeks per year are precious, and with every
session being recorded, anything I'm passively consuming gets watched
later.) It's not like the entire IETF needs to collaborate in the same
place at the same time, so I'm skeptical of the need for slots dedicated to
unstructured work.

That said, even with the addition of Wednesday afternoon to the available
slots, the crunch would still exist. The other two issues need to be
addressed.

Kyle