[rgchairs] Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Thu, 14 July 2005 02:04 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dst5H-00051t-8q; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dst5F-0004xm-6i for rgchairs@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02267 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zak.ecotroph.net ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DstXl-0002V7-6h for rgchairs@irtf.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:33:45 -0400
Received: from [] ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-SHA) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:12 -0400 id 00117D03.42D5C81C.0000075E
In-Reply-To: <c62b0a0850f812f55a40254ebf8e130f@ekabal.com>
References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D6CE8FE@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> <E4A1E5F3-EDB0-4CD2-B752-54C92B582E9E@hxr.us> <c62b0a0850f812f55a40254ebf8e130f@ekabal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <541BF34C-7FCE-4E8E-B073-2E94D5BB69F6@hxr.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:10 -0400
To: Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rgchairs@irtf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org, wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: [rgchairs] Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT
X-BeenThere: rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <rgchairs.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:rgchairs@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On Jul 13, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Rohan Mahy wrote:
> I don't believe this boondoggle criticism as a reason to go home on  
> a Friday.

I was referencing cases where travel arrangements dictate that a  
person must spend more time at a venue than the conference requires.   
To some, it is not easy to justify.

>   Anyone who has looked at a recent IETF agenda packed full of  
> meetings starting at 9am and running late into evening with  
> meetings through Friday is going to understand that the meeting  
> runs for the entire week and is very full.  Going there Sunday  
> through Thursday vs. Sunday vs. Friday will not change their  
> impression of the conference as either useful or a boondoggle.

Travel authorization and travel budgets are usually measured in  
transportation costs and lodging expenses, not conference agendas.

>   If anything, I believe I would be a bit suspicious if one of my  
> employees decided he really needed to go to a technical conference  
> but it wasn't important enough to attend the last day of it.

I'm glad you think in that way.  I wish all technical managers and  
supervisors did as well.

>> There are a host of real world issues many participants must  
>> grapple with, and telling them that they should be more devoted to  
>> the IETF is not helpful.
> True, but asking those who are willing to attend all week to jump  
> through hoops to accommodate someone else's schedule who chooses  
> not to attend is neither fair nor helpful.

Well, it might not be fair, but it can resolve some of the problems.   
Though I'm not advocating to do this.  My point is that we might want  
to face up to the fact that many people do this at every IETF.  And  
it would seem no amount of being defensive with regard to the Friday  
sessions has fixed it.  Why else do we keep having this conversation  
in the IETF?
Perhaps we ought to do something helpful, like find additional time  
for slots elsewhere in the week.

>> As for scheduling, I'd rather see the extra plenary session  
>> abandoned and have that time dedicated for more working group and  
>> bof slots.
> I've chaired WG meetings and adhocs during the hours typically  
> associated with the plenary, and I don't believe this time makes  
> for productive meetings, especially later in the week.  I don't  
> think extra evening slots will produce quality face-to-face time,  
> which is ostensibly why we bother to attend the meetings at all.

My experience differs.  But if the evening time on Wednesday or  
Thursday is unproductive, then perhaps we shouldn't hold any sessions  
at that time, including the plenary.


Rgchairs mailing list