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

Kyle Rose <> Mon, 25 February 2019 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA931279E6 for <>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SimMIpdxZMtt for <>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62485130F66 for <>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c3so2060263ybo.11 for <>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:24:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qRnP8nvaszZQiezrB8p9XQ3BCGwlCJbZKJazGdKTzds=; b=mmmzDvmaBxccA+sAFBrUlvy79VWs0XXTBL/mDrfL6uLTag6Sn1pQM6IpU7MuRhe2il eNLpb0WOmt+TuSengJDf6TtXB5jQocPQiMlkME0P13Y1m/WNgsqdRvUzFXyqvOnlIShq rzc09H7zkXdVTluWZI78j68ndgOzfF1xmZEy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qRnP8nvaszZQiezrB8p9XQ3BCGwlCJbZKJazGdKTzds=; b=pEBW38M9H1sv+S21Nsv3wuptk8yp9idrgd1WS8ngBeVo4XY8/snOaWsbY6ZfvpULLa OId3zda8+0ILwF3mh/67UPVLsi6AjB0wrt5Lzu2/t7961iC07yzVJwBQZOmAPG9sbx4L rwRy3P1b4UYSHF6aMGfT0Ss2FBY6eA/1cWZ/ovhGVFKzXytiZ8ZiKY1YHAuNi7uYlbUC OIZ3tVYiwx7H9hL//qPwNdsCoc2fm8j/moio2xA2Tgj8hxnCMZ1LN4qKo9qxMzaiffqM VEResXohDtVfCJsS9uFp/Mguw4kSaziPlDubj3707jcUMo8NjTM23d8by7a9PBTp8/MT EriA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYCfuhSoSCL9KgiAAOhs7AhiAL0xIW2ewrnljlKWGRqdotpSUcn WfZiR3RHyB46sVZqKzG+cPO5eXebD5O1ooPdFQ1uCg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia9x1r9LcOUVZVG59n0yf4bx4070iqFbpoC0nIUgkA3teIwDCqmOUU7zxQ6TnBhxaX0dwHRhF/oXyzZhRktgu8=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:5c7:: with SMTP id 190mr3851799ybf.437.1551129885382; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:24:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kyle Rose <>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:24:34 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, WG Chairs <>, "" <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d1b4a90582be915d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] [104all] Further Clarification Re: IETF 104 Preliminary Agenda
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Recent IETF Attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:24:49 -0000

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:02 PM Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 3:56 PM, Kyle Rose <> wrote:
> 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.
> The problem is that everyone has _different_ conflicts.   Coming up with a
> time when everybody is available for any value of “everybody” greater than
> about three is quite difficult.   So no, not the entire IETF, but that’s an
> extreme example of the actual problem.

How widespread of a problem is this? Most of the groups I'm involved in
comprise folks who have the same conflicts I do, because we're all working
in the same general areas. There are also 5 mornings and 4 or 5 evenings
(if you count Sunday) available for cross-functional collaborative work
that can't fit elsewhere. I suppose some attendees are enough in-demand
that those are all spoken for, but if those folks are outliers, I'm not
sure their needs should drive meeting policy. To figure this out, we really
need some survey of the attendees to find out how *uniquely* helpful the
unstructured time slots are to resolving conflicts for collaboration.