[rgchairs] Long BoFs (was Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT)

[Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I understand that voipeer was approved and the ADs agreed on 2.5 hours. 
  My personal impression is that if a BoF requires more than 1 hour, 
either the scope is too large or there has not been enough mailing list 
or ad-hoc discussion yet.

I think the scheduling problem would be easier if we restrict BoFs to 1 
hour in the future.  Active WGs should take precedence and this is one 
way to do that.

Thanks again Marcia for making the best of an impossible situation.

thanks,
-rohan

On Jul 14, 2005, at 8:11, David Meyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:33:00PM +0200, Hisham Khartabil wrote:
>> There is a conflict in the agenda on Thursday Afternoon Session I. A
>> sizeable portion on the VoIP community attend SIMPLE WG meeting and
>> will be interested in attending VOIPEER BOF.
>>
>> It would be great that when moving the slot, to make sure that no 
>> other
>> conflicts occur with sip, sipping, enum, mmusic, ecrit, xcon, behave
>> and avt working groups. It might be much easier to move voipeer since
>> its a bof and I dont think it requires a 2.5 hour slot.
>
> 	First, I realize the very difficult scheduling problem
> 	that the secretariat is facing. I wanted, however, to
> 	address the time requirements for the BOF. When I was
> 	discussing this with the ADs, we settled on this length
> 	for the BOF due to the overwhelming number of folks who
> 	expressed interest in participating (and their various
> 	scheduling constraints). In any event, I would rather
> 	leave the 2.5 hour length as it is, or we won't be able
> 	to have time for everyone who has expressed interest to
> 	participate, and to have a reasonable amount of time for
> 	discussion.
>
> 	Dave


_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs